aclean-sweep.com

The Populists Viewpoint is a political education web site dedicated to spreading the belief in a Constitutional Republic and not a decadent democracy, where the unwashed rabble can vote themselves Hugh largess from the public treasury- Bill Gibbons

We believe that states, county and local police should cease to help enforce all federal laws, because most of these laws are un-Constitutional and should not be enforced. We say don't enforce federal laws, because the feds don't want any help in enforcing federal immigration laws against illegal aliens. Either help with all laws or help with NO LAWS. Lattigo Smith

There are five articles today

How Ron Paul Could Win

January 27, 2012| Categories: Articles & Columns| Tags: paul craig roberts org,

In the Soviet Union common criminals were punished less harshly and received better treatment than political prisoners. A person who had committed a violent crime had more rights than someone who expressed criticism of the government and could be portrayed as having acted against the government. We now have the same situation in the US.

In a recent case the Supreme Court overturned the sentence of a drug dealer who was convicted on the basis of a warrantless 28-day search by having a GPS device affixed to his car. In other words, a common criminal still has privacy rights under the Constitution, but not US citizens who are suspected of vague and nebulous “terrorist support.”

Both Republicans and Democrats have demonstrated disregard for the civil liberty protections guaranteed by the US Constitution. Among the visible candidates for president, only Ron Paul has respect for the Constitution. As it is now possible for the executive branch to take away the life and liberty of a US citizen without due process of law, the Constitution is for all practical purposes lost. Tyranny looms, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who stands against tyranny.

This is why I have written that Ron Paul is our last chance and encouraged his libertarian handlers to be flexible enough for the electorate to elect Ron Paul. I agree that Ron Paul, if elected president, would be hamstrung by the Establishment, but the other candidates offer no hope whatsoever.

What is at stake is not libertarianism, but the US Constitution. Unfortunately, not many libertarians see that. Neither do many progressives. If truth be known, Americans are too divided and in opposition to one another to be able to unite against tyranny.

In previous columns I explained how Ron Paul could appeal to low income Americans, to elderly Americans, and to those Americans concerned about illegal immigration. I suggested that Ron Paul endorse Ron Unz’s proposal to raise the minimum wage to $12 per hour as a way of turning the jobs taken by illegal immigrants into a more livable income for Americans. I suggested that Ron Paul should acknowledge that people who have paid a payroll tax all their working lives have private property rights to Social Security and Medicare benefits.

A number of libertarians replied, as I knew they would from my long years of association with them, with their standard dogmatism that the minimum wage causes unemployment and that Social Security and Medicare are government programs not private property. They were blind to Ron Unz’s point that low wages cause unemployment among Americans who are unable to live on the wages, and, thus, cause an inflow of illegal immigrants who take the low wage jobs.

I don’t need to repeat my suggestions as the columns are available on my web site. I will, however, point out that the fact that Medicare and Social Security are intergenerational transfers does not mean that they are not private property. Consider your homeowner’s policy. If your neighbor’s home burns down or a person’s home in a distant location, the insurance company draws on the pool of funds created by policy holders’ premiums in order to compensate the person who lost his home. The damaged homeowner is not simply compensated from his own paid-in premiums. If more homeowners are elderly than young, it is an intergenerational transfer when a young homeowner’s home burns down.

Like Medicare, private health insurance is a transfer payment as premiums from the healthy support the care of the sick. Private medical insurance could also be an intergenerational transfer. Premium are adjusted for age, but generally speaking, the young are more healthy than the old.

For Ron Paul to further broaden his base, he also needs to add to my previous suggestions his endorsement of regulation to protect the environment and to protect private savers from fraud and irresponsible debt leverage by private financial institutions.

Libertarians claim that the best way to protect the environment is to have it privately owned. If streams, oceans, and underground aquifers were privately owned, the owners could sue polluters such as the oil companies, the mining companies, agri-business, etc. Thus, private property would protect the environment. Whether this would work or not, we are a long way from such private ownership, and many private economic activities are destroying common environmental resources.

The list is endless. The World Wildlife Fund reports that Asia Pulp & Paper is destroying the last remaining Sumatran tigers by clear cutting the tigers’ last remaining refuge in order to produce toilet paper marketed in the US under the Paseo and LIVI brand names. “Feel the Power! Buy our product and flush a tiger and a rain forest!”

The National Defense Resource Council reports that under an Obama regime and state of Utah plan, massive coal mining will be permitted adjacent to Bryce Canyon National Park. Three hundred heavy diesel trucks per day will travel down the scenic two-lane highway to supply China with dirty coal.

The Obama regime has granted Shell Oil tentative approval to begin drilling off the coast of the Arctic Refuge, the main on-shore birthing ground for polar bears.

Defenders of Wildlife reports that Shell Oil is pushing to open Bristol Bay to oil drilling, despite the danger to fisheries and wildlife and despite the fact that the long-term value of the renewable fisheries far exceeds the short-term value of nonrenewable fossil fuel extraction in the area.

In the Powder River Basin in Montana, coal companies are mobilizing to destroy the water resources and ranchers in the eastern part of the state.

All of these are current hot ticket items with progressives, environmentalists, and ranchers. Obama is vulnerable. He has put the tar sands pipeline on hold, but many believe he will approve the environmentally destructive project once he is re-elected.

Air, water, wildlife, and fish in the sea are not private property and have no protectors. They are being destroyed by the lack of regulation. Moreover, private property has not protected forests from being clearcut or soil from being depleted of its natural nutrients. The chemical farming with which agri-business has replaced natural farming has polluted America’s aquifers, streams, lakes, rivers, and the Gulf of Mexico, which has extensive dead areas from chemical fertilizer run-off.

As Herman Daly and other environmental economists have made clear, the world is running out of sinks into which to dump its wastes. The external costs of unregulated activity are mounting. Once a threshold is crossed, the environment is ruined. The drive to maximize short-run profits is a great source of ruin. The external costs associated with maximizing short-run profits can exceed the value of the private output.

A candidate committed to saving the Constitution, environment, private savings, protecting the security of the elderly, opposing war, and boosting the incomes of the worst off, which has the added benefit of reducing illegal immigration, is a candidate without equal in the presidential election.

We will not have such a candidate, because libertarian sectarian dogmatism will prevent it. Libertarians will be pure to the end and take the Constitution and the rest of us down with them.

How the Swiss Opted Out of War

by Bill Walker, February 02, 2012 www.antiwar.com

Switzerland has not been in a foreign war of any kind since 1815. This would be astounding, even miraculous, for any nation. But Switzerland borders Germany. And France. And Italy. And Austria. And Liechtenstein. Now the Vaduz regime has rarely lashed out in blitzkrieg in a desperate bid to reign über alles, but all of Switzerland’s other neighbors have spent their histories invading other countries.

In addition to the encircling foreign marauders, Switzerland itself is composed of four different language groups (German, French, Italian, and Romansh) that get along as well as, well, Germans and French.

The Swiss finalized their no-wars policy of armed neutrality in 1815. Their decentralized citizen army was good enough to keep them out of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, World War I, and other European gang fights. In 1934, they addressed the looming threat of aerial bombing by starting a massive civil-defense effort. They maintained their citizen army and kept out of World War II, even while provoking Hitler by letting Jews hide their assets in secret Swiss bank accounts. Many Jews only escaped the Holocaust because they had their money where Nazi tax authorities couldn’t get it.

Hitler was in fact very provoked by the Swiss. His generals even got as far as giving the invasion of Switzerland the name “Operation Tannenbaum” and drawing lines on maps for it. However, no matter how they drew the lines, they couldn’t overcome the reality that there were no critical central targets for mechanized blitzkrieg to disrupt. Every house in Switzerland was a center of resistance. The Wehrmacht paratroopers couldn’t beat a defense that covered every square centimeter of the country with accurate rifle fire, and they knew it.

At the end of World War II, some Russian refugees took shelter in Liechtenstein. The Soviets demanded they be turned over to the NKVD, and Liechtenstein blocked them (so occasionally the fury of Liechtenstein is unleashed, after all). While the United States and Britain helped the Soviets herd millions of people onto trains to Siberian death camps, the citizens of Liechtenstein (and its ally Switzerland) faced down Stalin.

In 1962, noticing that the Cold War world was not getting any safer, the Swiss started building nuclear shelters. By the early 1990s, the program was complete. Every home, school, and business in Switzerland has a blast shelter in the basement, with a filtered air system. Hospitals have fortified wards, and local governments have underground command centers. Every citizen is trained in civil defense and knows where to find a radiation meter and/or gas mask. If the rest of Europe turns itself to glowing rubble, the Swiss will spend two weeks playing cards underground and then get back to work.

All this defensive infrastructure also limits the destructive potential of terrorist attacks. Dirty bombs are useless against people with shelters and fallout meters. Every citizen has anti–chemical weapon masks and equipment. Even nuclear bombs would only kill people in the immediate blast area; survivors would escape to the shelters. Any attempt to terrorize citizens with Mumbai-style attacks would be met with the assault rifles and rocket launchers of every Swiss household.

How much does all this security cost the Swiss? Not very much. In the 1980s the Swiss spent about $33 per capita annually on civil defense. Since the completion of the shelter program, they spend less; in fact the Swiss federal government now leaves all civil defense spending to the cantons. Estimates put total Swiss military spending at 0.9% of GDP. The US spends 5–6% of our much larger GDP to achieve almost total vulnerability.

The Swiss solution makes Swiss society more resilient against other natural or man-made disasters as well. A reactor meltdown is trivial to a nation that is built to withstand direct nuclear bombardment. Even asteroid strikes or megavolcanoes are less threatening to a nation only steps away from shelter and stockpiles. Whatever the future brings, the Swiss people will face it squarely and deal with it.

The American Way: Permanent War and No Defense

As Jon Huntsman said before dropping out of the primary race, the United States spends about as much as the rest of the world put together on “defense.” Our on-budget military spending is around 45% of world defense expenditure. But then we have a ~$75 billion black budget, a Veterans Administration budget of $132.2 billion, on-budget foreign aid of $53.3 billion, and off-budget Federal Reserve foreign aid in frankly unbelievable amounts. So a hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, and we end up spending as much as all the rest of the world’s armies and air forces put together.

The United States has military programs to address threats that don’t even exist. We have the F-35 to face the now-defunct Soviet air force, Trident submarines to launch missiles at now-friendly Russian cities, and aircraft carriers to fight no one, as no other country is dumb enough to pile $20 billion onto one fragile, indefensible “missile magnet.”

So we must be pretty safe, right? We must have really good anti-aircraft defenses — oops, no, even civil airliners can just fly right into the Pentagon, even with lots of warning time. But we must have missile defense, after all the money we’ve spent? Not so much. We have around 30 interceptor missiles that protect Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force base — as long as the enemy promises not to use any decoys or electronic countermeasures. U.S. cities are wide open to attack by any nuclear power, including the French.

But the only military threat recognized by mainstream media nowadays is terrorist bombs, delivered by Chevy Suburbans or the UPS man. So the United States must have a really well-developed civil defense system to protect citizens against fallout, nerve gas, or biological agents. All citizens must be well-trained in nuclear, biological, and chemical defense and have their radiation meters, masks, and protective suits in their car trunks.

Maybe in some alternate universe. In the 2012 United States, the only civil defense is whatever people provide for themselves. Our trillion dollars or so of “defense” money is spent mainly on serving as mercenaries to the various warlords that we support around the world. Meanwhile, America herself is the most vulnerable target in history, full of single-point failure modes, glass cities, and panicky“Homeland Security” bureaucrats.

A few guys with box cutters caused us to attack ourselves with “security”measures that cost us many times the expense of the physical damage of the 9/11 attacks. Then we made a follow-up strike on ourselves by launching several wars, which cost another $4 trillion or so. That was our response to losing two buildings.

A serious terrorist attack wouldn’t involve suicide bombings with hijacked airliners. There would be far more dangerous non-suicide bombings using nerve gas, Ebola, flu, or nuclear bombs. Or bargain-basement terrorists could simply make simultaneous conventional explosive attacks on dams (at flood stage), refineries and chemical plants (during smog-weather inversions), the Internet backbone (anytime), etc.

Americans have to be honest with ourselves. If there were a real attack against the United States, would we bravely handle it with a stiff upper lip and recover? Or would our “Homeland Security” apparatus choke the economy of our country to death in panic, with crazy travel restrictions and nonsensical strip searches of old women and children? I think the answer is clear: the United States would cease to exist in anything resembling a functional state if even one city were seriously attacked.

America Could Be Safer Than Switzerland

Switzerland, of course, is a small, landlocked among other nations with long criminal records, and it has a smaller military budget than any one of its potential attackers. The United States has none of these problems. If we applied the Swiss model, we could ensure that our society, our Constitution, our freedoms, and most of our people would survive even a major attack. And if someone thinks you’re certain to survive and hunt them down, they’re less likely to attack in the first place.

We have technical advantages the Swiss do not. We could expand our missile defense program and help the other powers to do so as well. No decent person wants to see the children of Kiev, Mumbai, or Beijing burn in nuclear fire for some politician’s agenda. A thin defense shield against rogue missiles for every country that wants it should be encouraged.

We could also have a real air defense against bombers or drones tomorrow. All we have to do is fly our F-15s home from Saudi Arabia and use them to guard Washington, D.C., and Peoria instead of Riyadh. Our Patriot missiles could be placed around U.S. cities instead of scattered around the Middle East. (Those who doubt the Patriot missile’s effectiveness should note that it has confirmed kills in 2003 against an RAF Tornado and an F-18 Hornet — by accident, of course, but there’s no doubt they can shoot down planes.)

If our Navy weren’t busy blockading Iran to raise the price of oil, it could add its Aegis cruisers to defend our coastal cities. Our naval forces would still fight piracy and maintain freedom of the seas, but we don’t need Cold War–size forces in expensive Bahrain bases for that. As far as pirates go, all we really have to do is allow the merchantmen to arm themselves.

Of course, if we applied a noninterventionist foreign policy, the number of groups motivated to attack us would be greatly reduced. Right now, we are involved in most of the ethnic and religious conflicts around the world. Far too many political factions would benefit from a distracted and damaged United States. If an attack were anonymous, how would we retaliate? Last time, we “retaliated”against a nation (Iraq) that wasn’t even involved in the attack. They didn’t have WMDs, but what if our next president accidentally lies us into attacking someone who does? Like France?

This brings up another Swiss policy: their president can’t launch wars by executive order. In theory, neither can ours, and we need to start applying that theory (and the rest of the rule of law) in practice again.

The Swiss recipe for peace is simple, but it requires all elements in order to work.

1. Power must be decentralized so that your own politicians cannot aggress against other nations. It’s too obvious to need stating, but you can’t stay out of wars if you keep starting them.

2. Defense must be decentralized as well. The Norwegians also had a militia system in World War II, but the weapons were piled in central armories. The Wehrmacht paratroopers dropped right on the armories and used the Norwegians’ own artillery against them.

3. Defense must be focused on defense and protection of civil society. Adding your troops to every ethnic and religious conflict on earth is not going to make your society safer.

Refusing to Face the Real Threat: Bankruptcy and Monetary Collapse

Our national defense debate is taking place in Media Wonderland, where the United States has infinite resources and there are no costs or consequences for any action. According to Newt, it’s time for us to spend a few trillion on a government-run moon base, while Mitt just wants to spend those trillions on new Mideast wars. These are supposedly the “mainstream” views. The only noninterventionist candidate is summarily ignored.

Back on planet earth, the United States has an on-budget debt that is larger than our GDP, and government accountants don’t count Social Security, Medicare, the prescription-drug benefit, or Federal Reserve bank bailouts. Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, using CBO figures, calculates the real U.S. debt at more than $200 trillion. Our huge“defense” budget is borrowed month by month from foreign powers, hardly a sustainable situation.

If we eliminate corporate welfare and bailouts, get out of our illegal undeclared wars, reduce and redirect military spending to actual defense, and free the U.S. economy to recover, the 21st century could see an American Renaissance. Otherwise, our economy’s fall is inevitable, and all the king’s tanks and all the king’s planes won’t put it together again. An America involved in every conflict, with no resources to support any of them, is the legacy we have given our children.

Chris Adamo

February 2, 2012

2012: Outing establishment GOP as the real enemy

By Chris Adamo www.renewamerica.com

Few political events have caught fire in the American Heartland with the swiftness of Congressman Allen West's January 28, 2102 Lincoln Day Dinner address in West Palm Beach Florida. Lambasting the intellectual dishonesty and subversive motives of the left, Congressman West declared in unmistakable terms that Real America will have no more of the liberal agenda. By the following Tuesday, portions of the speech had spread across the nation, being replayed on talk radio and going viral over the Internet.

To nobody's great surprise, the usual liberal mouthpieces, as typified by Democrat strategist Bob Beckel, reacted with predictable and exaggerated indignation. Nevertheless, mainstream America responded to West with a collective cheer of approval. Finally, someone on the Republican side is exhibiting sufficient backbone to echo the sentiments of Main Street, where common folk have soundly rejected both the ravages of liberalism and the insipid banalities of "bipartisanship" and "cooperation" still touted by establishment Republicans inside the Beltway as the proper course for the nation in this perilous time.

A hero to conservative America, it is appalling that West's rising star is threatened not by the Democrats, but by the GOP Establishment in his own state. As part of an ongoing effort to disenfranchise and ultimately disband the Tea Party, Republican insiders have hatched a plot to get rid of West, and in the process, deliver a stern warning to other real conservatives of sharing his fate should they fail to play the political game on terms dictated by the ruling class.

In a defining sense, West's plight is a microcosm of the difficulties faced by the entire conservative movement as it is repeatedly betrayed by liberal opponents masquerading as their kindred. And until grassroots conservatives recognize the nature of this Trojan Horse in their midst, and unconditionally reject it as an ally, they will continually find themselves undermined and thwarted at crucial stages of their battle against liberalism.

Considering the intensity of public backlash against Barack Obama in 2010, which culminated in devastating mid-term Democrat losses in the Congress, as well as significant routs in state legislatures across the country, it would seem ludicrous that the Republican Party insiders might even consider "reaching across the aisle" to subordinate themselves to the party America had so stridently rejected. Yet in the months following the elections, it became abhorrently obvious that such was exactly the course the GOP insiders had chosen.

On one occasion after another since Barack Obama's inauguration, grassroots America had rallied and united in its efforts to stop the liberal onslaught in its tracks. And just as frequently, the moment any conservative victory was achieved, the GOP Establishment set itself to the task of neutralizing and negating everything that had been gained.

In a resounding rebuff of Obama's relentless effort to drag America into the mire of socialism, the people of Massachusetts stunned the entire world by installing Republican Scott Brown in the Senate seat left vacant by the death of Democrat stalwart Ted Kennedy in a January 2010 special election. Yet to the dismay of everyone hoping for Brown to be a real Republican, the moment he passed inside the Beltway, he cast off his pickup truck driving "man of the people" persona, and embraced virtually every premise of the Washington D.C. status quo. Very quickly thereafter, he publicly aligned himself with almost every tenet of the counterculture and the nanny state.

In like manner, once Republicans had assumed majority status in the Congress, the primary effort of party veterans was to whip the newcomers into line, pressuring significant numbers of freshmen to acquiesce on such defining issues as raising the debt limit and funding the initial phases of Obamacare. In what now is revealed as total insincerity, they made empty assurances that once the GOP had reestablished itself as the majority in both houses and taken the presidency, such matters as deficit reduction and government bloat could be properly addressed.

Yet even as they offered those platitudes, they were working overtime to ensure that no such changes would ever ensue. The entire effort by the Republican Establishment to pre-select former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as the party's nominee has been a hallmark of insider politicking, trumpeting the ostensible superiority of "moderation" as a means of attracting voters from the political "center" and minimizing the feared liabilities of right wing "extremism." Among the elites, Romney represents the best hope of never having to deliver on political promises, post election. Conversely, real conservatism is a discordant millstone which drags down the Republican Party.

In keeping with this philosophy, party operatives must work to neutralize any upsurge of grassroots conservatism, even if it means the betrayal of duly elected Republican office holders. In the case of Congressman West, the Florida legislature, despite holding greater than 2:1 Republican majorities in both houses, is claiming the 2010 Census and redistricting requirements as justification for eliminating his congressional seat. Amazingly, the Republican legislative caucus makes this assertion despite the fact that Florida will actually gain two representatives in this redistricting cycle.

Clearly, to the RINO wing of the Republican Party, the undiluted conservatism of Allen West is recognized as more of a threat to its political fortunes than a continuation of deficit spending, back peddling, and the outright betrayal of conservative principles that it regularly perpetrates in its faux political opposition to the Democrats. The existence of Tea Party momentum is ultimately a greater headache to these "Republicans" than anything they might receive from across the aisle.

Conversely, conservative America now faces undeniable evidence that its future as a movement is wholly dependent on surmounting this obstacle within its own camp. Until such time as conservatives begin to deal with Republican "moderates" as devoted members of the disloyal opposition, and refuse quarter to them under any circumstances, they can abandon all hope that their political fortunes will change for the better.

© Chris Adamo

Florida: God’s Waiting Room for Freedom

by Brian Wilson www.lewrockwell.com

A post-Florida Primary Review.

Of sorts.

Another primary; another late night of Required Talk Show Homework. While much happened that deserves comment, one big, fat lie must be mentioned.

An alleged reporter on Faux News said "Romney got the most votes in all categories, women ... and the Tea Party." These Fox clowns already have zero credibility with me. They don't have to French kiss

Romney in public to prove it.

The Tea Party is on my Naughty List. After all that talk about reading the Constitution and history and the Founding Fathers and generally learning what is the real America, nothing, not a dent. They are just the same conservatives they started out as; louder than most about the craziness in the Logic Free Zone. Their cause is just and I support them completely. I just don't want them to tell me they have the Constitution in their heart.

I don't care if you like Ron Paul. I'm not asking you to vote for him. Just don't tell me you believe in the US Constitution while you're chasing your latest conservative heart throb. So you don't like Paul's foreign policy. That's fine but what is unconstitutional about it? You don't like Paul's crazy libertarian morals. Again, tell me what is unconstitutional about them?

If your candidate is Santorum or Newt, as an exercise for yourself, write down their campaign promises and the constitutional authority to make those promises come true. It is not that what you believe is wrong. It is just not the job of the federal government to provide it. If you are "taxed enough already," how can you complain about liberals illegally using the federal government to implement their form of government instead of your unconstitutional desires? Let us free ourselves of the DC ruling class and take our fight to our own state capitals. (Have you read your Tom Woods today?)

If Romney is you candidate, why are you even hangin’ with the Tea Party? Join the blow-dried boobs on the other side of my TV. After Mitt rids the free world of Obamacare (Rommneycare living large,) then what? He'll run the government like a business? He's use the government to run the economy like a business? How can any rational person think to run a Free Market? Just get the hell out of our way!

All I want from the next president is a whole lot of "not." I want the next president to NOT be telling me how to run my life. I want the next president to NOT be taxing me into the poor house. I already have a wife, family and bass fishing addiction to spend me there. I want the next president to NOT tax me for other people's retirement. Hey! Who is going to pay for mine? I want the next president to NOT tax the rich. They employ me. I want the next president to NOT create more regulations than the entire Written History of Mankind. I want the next president to NOT spend my money buying other peoples votes.

I want everyone to look deep into their own souls and ask if their president will NOT be on my back, NOT be reaching in my pocket and NOT putting his hands in my pants where strangers shouldn't go.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who wants to be the president and NOT do something for me. When your Mitt loses to Obama, I will be hangin’ with the Mayans and laughing at your Doom!

February 2, 2012

Brian Wilson [send him mail], nationally ignored talk show host and occasional LRC un-indicted co-contributor, is currently annoying miniscule audiences in a number of markets from his technically challenged studios safely outside the dictatorship of Toledo. Brian may be endured from 3p–6p at www.wspd.com.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

AMERICA'S THREE-HEADED MONSTER

By Lee Duigon
February 2, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

How Obamaism works

In Greek mythology, a three-headed dog, Cerberus, guarded the gates of Hades so that no one could get out.

In Japanese movies, Ghidra the Three-headed Monster trashed Tokyo and gave Godzilla fits.

In America we have a new three-headed monster to afflict us. It’s called Obamaism.

Some concepts in political science are so easy to explain, they can be stated as simple arithmetical equations. For example:

Government + Crony Capitalists = Fascism

Government + Unions = Peronism

Back in the golden years of the Great Depression, Benito Mussolini offered a panacea: get the government and the big corporations working together on everything, and presto—the trains run on time, everyone goes back to work, and all the intellectuals in Europe hail you as a genius for inventing a new way of doing things: fascism.

In Argentina—a country blessed with a pleasant climate, a great wealth of natural resources, and a well-educated, hard-working population—Juan Peron’s predatory government welded itself to powerful unions to crush opposition and render the country perpetually incompetent. Still toiling under the legacy of Peronism, Argentina to this day has yet to get its act together.

Today in America, we have a new equation:

Government + Crony Capitalists + Unions = Obamaism

That’s the recipe. Garnish it with idle, high-flown rhetoric, spike it with class warfare, wash it down with empty promises… and you’ve got a banquet fit for a serf.

Everybody but college graduates and bowling pins knows that government in America is suicidally too big and costly. Every politician with a pulse-beat pays lip service to cutting the cost of government. But what do they do? Cut the cost? Merciful heavens, no! They raise the debt limit, pass stimulus packages, and pour money into “green” companies that couldn’t sell lifeboat tickets on a sinking ship. They know the whole flaming circus is going broke, but that doesn’t even slow them down.

Our government is run by a professional political class of people who want to stay in power forever and live like maharajas. For their purposes, government must keep on growing, not get smaller.

That’s where the crony capitalists come in. In Washington, D.C., everything is up for sale, as long as you can pay the price. The crony capitalists can and do pay it, every day. They understand that Occupy Wall Street is just a dog and pony show. They fund the political class and the political class protects them: not only protects them, but favors them at the expense of their competitors. The housing market may implode, energy prices may skyrocket; but whatever happens, the crony capitalists will get rich on it. Their friends in Washington make sure they do.

The oarsmen of this gilded pleasure-barge are union members. Those who belong to public sector unions row with golden oars, on fur-lined benches.

Unions, like the crony capitalists, fund the political class. Take away the teachers’ union dues, and the Democrat Party dies for lack of nourishment. But the union members’ votes are almost as important as their dues.

Now look at the equation as a living thing.

Government grows and grows and grows, requiring more and more money to sustain it. Even the most confiscatory taxes can’t possibly pay for its excesses.

It grows by hiring more and more public sector workers, who join public employee unions. In return for their dues and their votes, they get job security, high pay, fantastic benefits, early retirement, and pensions that will set them up for life.

Meanwhile, favored business titans, from whose ventures a friendly government has removed the element of risk—if you’re too big to fail, Washington will bail you out with other people’s money—make sure that government officials continue to enjoy a lavish lifestyle. Along with union dues, their largesse foots the bill for eternal re-election.

There you have Obamaism—a living, breathing monster with an insatiable appetite for money. It’s a new model for government, the love-child of Mussolini and Peron. Its genius lies in uniting unions and crony capitalists, awakening them to their common interest. There’s always so much more to be gained from collusion than from conflict!

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Top of Form

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Bottom of Form

This is Obamaism, and it will only end either when America runs out of money, or when the American people humble themselves before God, repent, and turn from their wicked ways. An immoral people will never have an honest government. Self-absorbed, stupidly covetous citizens can sustain neither a free market economy nor republican institutions: they are fit only for dictatorship.

When the country runs out of money, it’ll be too late to repent.

The Three Biggest Lies the Government Is Telling You

by Charles Goyette www.lewrockwell.com

Government lies are legion.

So many are its lies, that narrowing them down to three of the most important is a demanding task. But our current crisis has been chiefly enabled by monetary policy, fiscal policy, and the global military empire. So I have chosen to focus on lies about each: the Federal Reserve, the orchestrator of monetary policy; the U.S. budget, the accounting of government fiscal policy; and a few of the Empire’s war lies. I am sharing just a smattering of this astonishing record of duplicity in these areas, for life is short, or at least far too short to recount all of the state’s lies about each.

Lie #1: The Federal Reserve Is a Bank

Practically everything the government says about banking is a lie. Central banks are not banks. The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, is not a bank.

A bank is a company in the free economy that competes with other banks offering willing customers a safe place to make deposits and earn an interest rate return, while also competing to offer loans from those deposits to willing borrowers.

Central banks are government-created bureaucracies that do nothing of the sort.

The Federal Reserve is typical of central banks. It is not a free market institution in which people willingly make deposits. Instead, it wields monopoly power over actual banks. In place of managing deposits and loans of its own, it creates money out of nothing by a variety of means including debt monetization, in which it buys government debt by simply creating a credit in the account of a commercial bank with nothing more than a booking entry. This is an act made possible only by the state’s grant of a legal monopoly empowering the central bank to do what, if done by a private bank, would be a crime called counterfeiting.

Central banks thus have the ability to unilaterally boom and bust their economies at will. And they have done so throughout their history, either to the benefit of the commercial bank cartels, in response to political pressure, or because of outright economic ineptitude .

Writing at Lew Rockwell.com about the myth that the Federal Reserve is a "bank," and independent, finance professor Michael Rozeff describes a central bank as a government’s "fiat money bureau." "It is held up by the force of government law and power. It is imposed on the public."

The representation of them as actual banks produces confusion in which central banks are said to earn "profits." For example, a January, 2012 Federal Reserve press release reporting its "earnings," announced $76.9 billion in 2011 net income. This was described in the New York Times and the Financial Times as the Fed’s "profits," just as though it were the annual report of any commercial bank’s profits.

Yet in what sense does the Fed show a "profit" or have "earnings"? It is as inappropriate as describing the collections of the Internal Revenue Service as "profits."

Where are these Federal Reserve "profits" derived? They are the result of printing new dollars to buy assets; that is, they are the result of diluting the purchasing power of every dollar you or anyone else has. It is not any different than a dairy watering down 100 gallons of milk to sell 110 gallons. It is fraud. But it is a fraud legalized by act of Congress.

But the Federal Reserve is not alone. Another non-bank is the World Bank which loans money to governments and government enterprises. The World Bank has been a useful place to pasture failed U.S. government warmongers like the disastrous Vietnam War Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara and Iraq war co-author Paul Wolfowitz. Both were named World Bank presidents even as their deadly wars raged on.

The World Bank gets almost all of its money by way of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD),( also not a bank), which gets its money from taxes, the largest share coming from the American people. The IBRD also sells World Bank bonds, but they too are guaranteed by taxpayers.

American tax dollars go to other multi-national organizations such as the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.

None of which are banks.

Lie #2: War Lies

Governments and politicians lies incessantly about war. They lie about the cause of war. They lie about the threat of war. They lie about the cost of war. And they lie about their lies about war.

Governments lie relentlessly about war. Just in the last fifty years the people have been lied to about U.S. government wars from Vietnam to Iraq.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident, a purported attack on U.S. ships by North Vietnam off its coast, was used by President Johnson (an "unprovoked" attack he told the nation) to win legislative authority, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, for a war in Vietnam. But it was an incident that did not happen and Johnson knew it even as he escalated Vietnam into the full-blown blood bath it became. "Hell," he told his secretary of state just a few days after the resolution passed, "those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish!"

Lying is so intrinsic to the nature of government, that even the truth about old lies is concealed to protect new lies. In 2001, a National Security Agency study found that officials had actually doctored documents in covering up the truth about the Tonkin Gulf incident, the bogus war pretext that led to the needless deaths of millions of human beings. But the new report of that old cover-up was itself delayed for years for fear that it’s release would cast doubt on the intelligence that the Bush administrations was using to justify an invasion of Iraq.

In the case of the Iraq war, not only did defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lie about knowing where the non-existent weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq ("We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."), in a later exchange with my friend former CIA senior analyst Ray McGovern, Rumsfeld even denied he had made such a claim.

"Simply stated," Dick Cheney said of the mythical WMDs in August of 2002, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." "We know for a fact," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer in January of 2003, "that there are weapons there." "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction," said Colin Powell in February of 2003, "is determined to make more."

The government can be counted on to lie about the costs of war. Lawrence Lindsey, a Bush administration economist, was fired for suggesting in advance that the Iraq war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. Although estimates in the trillions of dollars would have been closer, Rumsfeld called Lindsey’s estimate "baloney."

The government tries to conceal spending by keeping it off the budget books with supplementary, appropriations and emergency measures. It even spreads war costs off of the defense department budget and into the budget of other departments such as state and energy.

I have written more about government’s war lies in my new book Red and Blue and Broke All Over: Restoring America’s Free Economy, but must finish the point here with a reminder of the government’s lies about the case of Jessica Lynch, and about the way the government lied about the killing of Pat Tillman and even lied about lying about its lies about his death.

Private Lynch was a 19-year-old clerk when her company was ambushed in Iraq after taking a wrong turn. She suffered injuries when her Humvee overturned and was taken by Iraqi soldiers to a nearby hospital. Although she suffered injuries when her Humvee overturned, "U.S. officials" reported that Lynch had gone down fighting and had been both shot and stabbed in action, and later even slapped around as he was interrogated on her hospital bed.

The truth is she had no such wounds. She had never fired her weapon, and, by her own account, was well cared for in the Iraqi hospital. Although the Iraqi doctor who had cared for her tried himself to turn her over to the Americans, the Pentagon, with a propaganda campaign in mind and camera’s rolling, staged a dramatic raid from helicopters to "rescue" Lynch. The video was edited up in no time and released by a Pentagon anxious to have a heroic feel-good war narrative to relate. But of course the Pentagon refused a request to release the full video of the "rescue" to clear up discrepancies in its account.

While the Pentagon is perfectly capable of lying on its own initiative, members of congress pressured the Pentagon to award Lynch the Medal of Honor, even before an investigation was complete, saying it would be "good for women in the military."

Pat Tillman, killed in action in Afghanistan, was posthumously awarded the Silver Star, a combat honor given for valor in action against an enemy. But there was no encounter with the enemy. Tillman was shot to death by his fellow soldiers. This was carefully concealed with fraudulent accounts of the incident.

Senior commanders’ prints were all over the cover-up about Tillman’s death. General John Abizaid approved the Silver Star despite knowing within days of Tillman’s death that he had been shot by "friendly fire." Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal cited Tillman for actions "in the line of devastating enemy fire," but the very next day sent a confidential memo about the fratricide to senior government officials including Abizaid warning them to protect themselves and President Bush from embarrassment in the episode.

Tillman’s family charged the military with repeatedly lying to them about his death and about its investigation, as it delayed accounts of his friendly fire death until after a nationally televised memorial service orchestrated by the Bush administration. By one account, his fellow soldiers were even told to lie to the family at Tillman’s funeral.

Tillman’s enlistment in the army after the 9/11 attacks was a national sensation. A good looking NFL player, Tillman gave up a multi-million dollar football career to join up. Thanks to his popularity, he was like a recruiting poster for the military. His father claimed that it was this usefulness to the military that helped drive the cover-up. "They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy."

Apparently the original cover-up, in which his comrades even burned the evidence of his body armor and uniform, was itself covered up. Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger was censured by the army for lying to investigators about Tillman’s death. Pat’s mother, Mary Tillman, said that Kensinger was just a scapegoat. "There are a lot of people who played a role in this and they are getting off without any punishment." She singled out Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Gen. John Abizaid by name.

The government not only lies about war, it routinely lies about its lies about war.

Lie #3: The Real U.S. Debt

This may be the most brazen and transparent lie of all, the one about the U.S. national debt, now over $15 trillion dollars. It is a number that hides the severity of our situation.

Washington acts as though that is the real debt of the nation. Politicians posture for weeks at a time about it, devoting long debates to raising the ceiling on this visible portion of the national debt.

And yet the real federal debt is much, much larger and like an iceberg below the water line, most of it is hidden out of sight. And like the Titanic, Republicans and Democrats have the country headed for a tragic collision with economic reality.

Each year the federal government makes new promises and takes on trillions in new financial obligations that do not show up in the visible, official national debt. The persistent growth of these hidden debts each year far outpaces the increases in the visible debt. In 2010 for example, the visible federal debt grew by an astonishing $1.5 trillion. But the hidden debt – out of sight and without debate – grew by more than $5 trillion!

When a private business takes on an obligation to pay something, it is required to report it as a liability. It shows up on the books. Not so for the state. This allows politicians to blithely make promises without adequate revenue to pay for them. It is easy to understand why this practice should persist. Giving things to constituents feels good. Making them pay for those things causes politicians to suffer pain. Like most living creatures, politicians like to feel good and avoid pain. So when they add to the obligations of the state, when politicians make commitments for the future or promise entitlements like Social Security and Medicare to win re-election, the means to pay are often inadequate. But there is no such thing as a free lunch, which is to say, that the cost will have to be borne eventually by somebody. For the time being though, the preferred political expediency is keeping the costs, the liabilities, off the books.

Unfunded liabilities are the difference between a program’s projected costs and its projected revenues, both valued in today’s dollars.

Medicare and Social Security both have promised benefits that outrace revenue streams. They are the largest components of the government’s unfunded liabilities, the hidden debt of the nation. But there are other federal retirement programs with not merely inadequate funding like Medicare and Social Security, but with no revenue streams of their own at all. Among them are retirement programs for military and federal workers.

In September 2011, USA Today analyzed dozens of overlapping programs for retired federal workers. It reported that despite the existing debt crisis, Congress continues to add to the promised benefits, so that retirement programs now have a $5.7 trillion unfunded liability.

The newspaper sums up its report on the retirement programs this way:

Private employers are legally required to put money into pension funds to match retirement promises. Private pensions have $2.3 trillion in stocks, bonds, real estate and other assets. State and local governments have $3 trillion in retirement funds.

The federal government has nothing set aside.

The total unfunded liabilities of the U.S. government have been calculated with a number of present value and discount models. Results of the shortfall from these methods range from about $70 trillion to $120 trillion dollars. For a family of four this represents a liability between $900,000 and $1.5 million. (You can follow the debt as it adds up at www.USdebt.org.)

What does the state say about its unfunded liabilities? Here’s a response from the Congressional Budget Office, which answers, "… no government obligation can be truly considered ‘unfunded’ because of the U.S. government's sovereign power to tax – which is the ultimate resource to meet its obligations."

That is utter hooey. It conjures up an absurdity in which the government could meet its obligation by sending you a Social Security check, even as it raises a tax to take 100 percent of everything you get from Social Security. The reason that is an absurdity is that it is a two-step process to do what the government will do in just one step. By means either overt (legislative act) or covert (currency destruction), it will unilaterally reduce its "obligation," leaving millions of people betrayed.

Because it is the government. And it lies about its obligations.

Just like it lies about everything else.

January 27, 2012

Charles Goyette [send him mail] is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Dollar Meltdown: Surviving the Impending Currency Crisis with Gold, Oil, and Other Unconventional Investments, now available in paperback. And coming in February 2012, Charles Goyette's Freedom & Prosperity Letter. His new book Red and Blue and Broke All Over: Restoring America’s Free Economy will be released March 15.

Copyright © 2012 Charles Goyette

Georgia election official warns Obama about failure to appear

Lawyer had urged secretary of state to simply cancel challenges

Published: 2 days ago

by Bob Unruh Email | Archive

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.More ↓Less ↑

The state of Georgia is warning Barack Obama of the “peril” of simply ignoring today’s hearing on his eligibility to be on the 2012 presidential election ballot in the state.

The hearing before an administrative law judge was streamed live today, but Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, yesterday told the state he and his client would not participate.

The attorney told Secretary of State Brian Kemp that the issue already had been resolved and it wasn’t any of the state’s business anyway.

Kemp disagreed, explaining in a response that was posted online after hours last night that the case simply was “in keeping with Georgia law.”

“As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State’s Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for [this] morning.”

He continued, “I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.”

He also had a warning about the costs of simply not showing up for a court hearing.

“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

The hearing could have a huge impact. It is the first time among the some five dozen different legal cases that have been filed over Obama’s eligibility that evidence actually is being heard in a courtroom. Being introduced today is the evidence about Obama’s background, his documentation, the results of investigations of private investigators and other information.None of this heretofore has been put into an official court record, and judges earlier all had dismissed cases based on technicalities, such as “standing.”

It was yesterday that Barack Obama announced through his attorney that he will boycott the administrative hearings, prompting an attorney for one set of the plaintiffs to describe the nation’s commander-in-chief as acting like a “5-year-old brat.”

A letter from his lawyer, Jablonski, was posted on the website for California attorney Orly Taitz, whose determined pursuit of Obama’s eligibility documentation has taken her to courts across the nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jablonski told Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp in the letter that “serious problems” had developed in the hearings “pending before the Office of State Administration Hearings.”

He said, “At issue in these hearings are challenges that allege that President Obama is not eligible to hold or run for re-election to his office, on the now wholly discredited theory that he does not meet the citizenship requirements.”

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Jablonski said the judge – who previously rejected Obama’s demand to quash a subpoena for him to appear and bring with him his birth records documenting his status as a “natural-born citizen” – has “exercised no control” over the proceeding.

“It threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the state and your office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the president in his capacity as a candidate,” Jablonski wrote.

“We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26,” Jablonski wrote in the letter on the Taitz site, which indicated it had been sent to the participants in the case.

A blast of sarcasm aimed at Obama also was posted on the Taitz site.

“What Obama is asking now is totally insane,” it said. “He is asking the secretary of state of GA to take the trial away from the judge on the eve of the trial. He is mostly crying on the shoulder of the secretary of state of GA and saying that Orly is bad, because she issued all of those subpoenas. So after the judge told Obama that the subpoena that I issued was perfectly valid and he had to appear in court tomorrow and bring with him all of the documents that I demanded, Obama decided to go behind the back of the judge and send the same complaint about me to the secretary of state and he is asking the secretary of state to take the trial away from the judge.

“Does this look like a behavior of an innocent person? An innocent person would have come to court and showed all the valid documents with the embossed seals, which are verifiable,” the statement said. “Instead he is acting like a 5-year-old brat, saying, ‘I am afraid of Orly, I want the secretary of state of GA to act like my mommy and protect me from Orly.’ Some leader of the free world.”

The hearings are being brought by citizens of Georgia under a state law that allows voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates on the state’s ballot. It is the states that run elections in America, and national elections are just a compilation of the results of the 50 state elections.

The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Jablonski told Kemp he should simply “withdraw” the original hearing request as “improvidently issued.”

“It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here – a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The state of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the president made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website,” he wrote.

Jablonski accused Malihi of allowing the attorneys to “run amok.”

“Perhaps he is aware that there is no credible response; perhaps he appreciates that the very demand made of his office – that it address constitutional issues – is by law not within its authority.”

Obama, meanwhile, has a campaign trip to several Midwest and Western states lined up over the next few days.

WND reported earlier on the stunning decision from Malihi, who refused to quash the subpoena even after Obama outlined his defense strategy for such state-level challenges, which have erupted in half a dozen or more states already.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued. “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.”

The judge thought otherwise.

“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order.

“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.

“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced,’” the judge said.

Separately, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona told WND he also had received a subpoena to be at the hearings in Georgia. He said the purpose apparently is to ask him about his Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s eligibility, but he said since the investigation remains open, he wouldn’t be able to say much about it.

Hatfield also had filed with the court a “Notice to Produce” asking for Obama’s documents and records.

He wants one of the two original certified copies of Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

Obama’s attorney, Jablonski, also had argued that the state should mind its own business.

“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argued.

Taitz’s supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of her court cases, judging that Obama is on the defensive.

“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.

Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”

In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.

Irion said his argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural-born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president and no one else, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances based on his own testimony.

Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that numerous experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.

It is that concern that also has prompted Arpaio to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Its investigative report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.

The image released by the White House in April:
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural-born citizen” is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”

That case states: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

If a President is proven not eligible to hold the office and has served in that capacity, are the laws , programs, and all the other Presidential reforms Null ? You know, like all those Bail outs, entitlements to the "dead beats", Health Care Reform, Incarcerating `citizens and no charges made and all the rest of

i hope people all over are seeing what im seeing,, he isnt bringing everyone of our boys home to protect us, he is bringing them home to arrest us that oppose him, he is a traitor to this country, he is a dictator, the laws that apply to you and me do NOT apply to him according to him, he has broken this country finacially and now he is stepping in for the take over now please dont get me wrong,, i want our boys home too,, but i dont want to have everything we have done so far destroyed either we need some of them to stay there and make sure things stay where we have progressed

show more show less

It doesn't matter how much stonewalling Obama does on this. If Obama doesn't show up and produce his documents proving eligibility, then he will not be on the Georgian ballots. That means NO Georgia electoral votes for Obama.
All we need is enough states to refuse to put Obama on the ballot and he will lose - by default. He is obviously not eligible for the office. That is why he is refusing to cooperate. That is also why he has paid millions of dollars fighting lawsuits to produce his real long form birth certificate. Why would anyone spend all that money if all he had to do was produce a document that he could easily obtain and produce? There's only one answer: because he isn't eligible to hold the office of President.

Pat Buchanan decries U.S. 'hectoring every nation on earth to adopt the American way'

Published: 2 days ago

by Patrick J. Buchanan Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party's candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative. Buchanan served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of nine books. His latest book is "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?"More ↓

U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul, Obama’s man in Moscow, who just took up his post, has received a rude reception. And understandably so.

In 1992, McFaul was the representative in Russia of the National Democratic Institute, a U.S. government-funded agency whose mission is to promote democracy abroad.

The NDI has been tied to color-coded or orange revolutions such as those that dethroned regimes in Serbia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and Lebanon. The project miscarried in Belarus.

The NDI is one of several agencies, dating to the 1980s, that were set up to subvert communist regimes. With the end of the Cold War, however, these agencies were not decommissioned, but recommissioned to serve as something of an American Comintern.

Where the old Comintern of Lenin sought to instigate communist revolutions across the West and its empires, post-Cold War America decided to promote democratic revolutions to remake the world in the image of late 20th-century America.

In 2002, McFaul wrote a book: “Russia’s Unfinished Revolution.”

Vladimir Putin’s men are not unreasonably asking if he was sent to Moscow to finish that revolution. Putin has already accused Hillary Clinton of flashing the signal for street demonstrations to begin – to protest Russia’s December’s elections.

Nor is it surprising the Putin’s people are suspicious of McFaul, who added to his problems by meeting with anti-Putin dissidents the day after he presented his credentials.

McFaul says this is part of his “dual-track engagement” with Russian society. Before leaving for Moscow, he told NPR’s “Morning Edition”: “We’re not going to get into the business of dictating (Russia’s) path (to democracy). … We’re just going to support what we like to call ‘universal values’ – not American values, not Western values, universal values.”

But what, exactly, are these “universal values”?

And who are we to impose them on other nations? Did Divine Providence assign us this mission? Who do we Americans think we are?

After all, we do not even agree ourselves on what is moral and immoral, good and evil. Indeed, our own deep disagreements on what is moral and what is not are at the root of the culture wars tearing this country apart.

In America, women have a constitutional right to an abortion. Scores of millions have availed themselves of that right since Roe v. Wade. Yet traditionalists of many faiths – Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Orthodox and Jewish – reject any such woman’s right and regard it as a moral abomination.

Do homosexuals have a right to cohabit, form civil unions and marry?

In a few American states, yes; in others, no. But try to impose those values on nations of the Muslim and Third Worlds, where homosexuality is a moral outrage and even a capital offense, and our ambassadors will find themselves in physical peril.

Does McFaul believe democracy is a universally superior system of government? Yet our own Founding Fathers detested one-man, one-vote democracy. Democracy does not even get a mention in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Federalist Papers.

The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, believed society should be ruled by a “natural aristocracy” of “virtue and talent.”

If the promotion of democracy is a mission of our diplomats, are we to subvert the monarchies of Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia?

When we see how democracy empowered the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis in Egypt, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, does it even make sense to insist that it be embraced by nations where the populations are pervasively anti-American?

What is the universally right stand on capital punishment – the Rick Perry position in Texas or the Andrew Cuomo position in New York?

In the United States, all religions – Santeria, Wicca, Islam, Christianity – are to be treated equally and all kept out of the public square and the pubic schools. In a Muslim world that contains a fifth of mankind, Islam is the one true faith. Rival faiths have few or no rights.

Are we going to push the Islamic world to treat all religions equally?

We celebrate religious, racial and ethnic diversity. The Chinese, who persecute Uighurs, Tibetans, Christians and Falun Gong, detest that diversity and fear it will tear their country apart.

We believe in freedom of speech and the press.

Yet, in France, if you deny the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians in 1915, you are guilty of a crime, while in Turkey if you affirm that the Turks committed genocide, you have committed a crime. Should U.S. diplomats battle for repeal of both laws? Or mind our own business?

If America wishes to lead the world, let us do it by example, as we once did, not by hectoring every nation on earth to adopt the American way, which as of now, does not seem to be working all that well for Americans.

McFaul should stick to his diplomatic duties.

Jefferson had it right, “We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any count

Quick Reply

I Wouldn’t Hire Ron Paul…But he says Paul is the right man to be president, read on

by Charles Goyette www.lewrockwell.com

Recently by Charles Goyette: Slip-Sliding Into Tyranny: The New American Way

I will grant that Ron Paul is both intelligent and wise. And yes, it is true, that he is the most effective champion of human liberty in public life and seems to know more about the U.S. Constitution than any other elected official. He does seem to be personally kind and is even patient with the most obnoxious media figures. And it’s clear from his voting record that he is a man of principle and integrity.

SOnly it didn’t.

One could charitably say that Mitt understands none of this. Or cynically, that while TARP did nothing for homeowners in places like Kansas City, or for the unemployed in Modesto, it sure did something for Wall Street.

If Romney understood the Federal Reserve, he might not support its chairmen and its mission. But because Romney hasn’t devoted time to understanding central banking perhaps it needs to be described to him in a way that a corporate turnaround professional can understand.

What would Romney say about a hundred year old family-owned company whose outside management had destroyed 96 percent of the value of the company’s product?

Because that’s exactly what the Fed has done to the value of the dollar.

Would any self-respecting equity manager say, as Romney has said of the Fed, that such malfeasance doesn’t deserve his effort or focus? What if a closer look revealed just how much the company’s directors had prospered by their destruction of the family wealth? Would that be worth Romney’s attention?

It might be said that Mitt is altogether pleased that the nation’s monetary affairs are arranged to benefit investment bankers at the expense of the people. But if that is too cynical, it could be more charitably said that he just hasn’t had time to master the arcane world of central banking.

That’s fine.

But then Romney simply shouldn’t offer himself up as president.

Especially now.

Of course the very busy Mitt Romney seems to have given no more thought to American foreign policy than to the bailouts and the Fed. His glib call for a new American century of global military dominance has the anachronistic ring of someone who missed all the unintended consequences of our propping up sheiks and shahs and dictators around the world. And of someone who slept right through Bush’s elective war in Iraq. It sounds like someone who is completely clueless about the way the $1.2 trillion a year we spend on the national security state has bankrupted this country.

Romney says that if he knew then what we know now about Iraq, he wouldn’t have gone in.

That’s not good enough.

Because plenty of people knew then what we know now.

Ron Paul was clear that Iraq posed no threat to the security of this country. He knew that the war was being undertaken without constitutional authorization and that rather than an affair of days or weeks that we were told, he said that Bush’s splendid little war would be the biggest since World War II. He foresaw that the war would be accompanied by the growth of military and police powers along with the erosion of our civil liberties.

Having studied central banking and applied the insights of great economist like Mises, Ron Paul has described both in advance and in detail the cycle of bubbles and busts the Federal Reserve has plagued us with.

His 2003 description in Congress of the way the housing bubble would develop and the long-term damage it would do the U.S. economy was stunningly exact, a precise step-by-step preview of the calamity just as it unfolded.

The Federal Reserve may not merit Mitt Romney’s attention, but if the Fed had not been worthy of Ron Paul’s attention, we would not have learned the shocking truth about how the Fed had been acting as central bank to the world, secretly loaning trillions of dollars to the most politically powerful banks and companies. Not to mention foreign banks including Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Credit Suisse, and even one owned in substantial part by the Central Bank of Libya.

At this point it is not reasonable to expect that Mitt Romney has any idea what the economic consequences of these Federal Reserve policies will be. Since the mortgage meltdown the Federal Reserve has blown up its balance sheet, the adjusted monetary base, from $800 billion to more than $2.6 trillion. The cost of this policy is yet to be seen, but for one who understands money and credit like Ron Paul, that cost is entirely foreseeable. The consequences will be severe. It is America’s next big economic calamity.

Mitt Romney doesn’t know what the consequences of that will be. He hasn’t applied himself to understanding central banking and monetary theory. He hasn’t studied Mises and Hayek and Rothbard. He’s an equity raiser and corporate turnaround guy.

It’s a different skill set.

Mitt Romney might be a capable venture capitalist, but it would really be a serious mistake to hire him to be president. And that’s putting it charitably.

Ron Paul hasn’t spent his time structuring debt/equity ratios, thinking about mezzanine financing, or doing venture capital deals. But after a succession of shallow Romneys, following generations of failed Keynesian spend-our way-to-prosperity economics, and facing now the bankruptcy of the welfare/warfare state, for what ails this country Ron Paul is the doctor.

Let’s hire the right man this time.

January 19, 2012

Charles Goyette [send him mail] is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Dollar Meltdown: Surviving the Impending Currency Crisis with Gold, Oil, and Other Unconventional Investments, now available in paperback. And coming in February 2012, Charles Goyette's Freedom & Prosperity Letter. His new book Red and Blue and Broke All Over: Restoring America’s Free Economy will be released March 15.

Copyright © 2012 Charles Goyette

Charles Goyette [send him mail] is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Dollar Meltdown: Surviving the Impending Currency Crisis with Gold, Oil, and Other Unconventional Investments, now available in paperback. And coming in February 2012, Charles Goyette's Freedom & Prosperity Letter. His new book Red and Blue and Broke All Over: Restoring America’s Free Economy will be released March 15.

Paul Craig Roberts www.paulcraigroberts.org

Washington Moves The World Closer To War

January 16, 2012| Categories: Articles & Columns| Tags: Demitry Rogozin, EU, Iran, Israel:, nato, Russia, veto, War,

Since my January 11 column http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/01/11/the-next-war-on-washingtons-agenda/ and the news alert posted on January 14 http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/01/14/news-alert/, more confirmation that Washington is moving the world toward a dangerous war has appeared. The Obama regime is using its Ministry of Propaganda, a.k.a., the American media, to spread the story that President Obama, Pentagon chief Panetta, and other high US officials are delivering strong warnings to Israel not to attack Iran.

For someone as familiar with Washington as I am, I recognize these reports for what they are. They are Br’er Rabbit telling Br’er Fox “please don’t throw me in the briar patch.”

If you don’t know the Uncle Remus stories, you have missed a lot. Br’er Rabbit was born and raised in the briar patch.

What these “leaked” stories of Washington’s warnings and protests to Israel are all about is to avoid Washington’s responsibility for the war Washington has prepared. If the war gets out of hand, and if Russia and China intervene or nukes start flying, Washington wants the blame to rest on Israel, and Israel seems willing to accept the blame. Nikolai Patrushev, who heads Russia’s Security Council, has apparently been deceived by Washington’s manipulation of the media. According to the Interfax news agency, Patrushev condemned Israel for pushing the US towards war with Iran.

You get the picture. The helpless Americans. They are being bullied by Israel into acquiescing to a dangerous war. Otherwise, no more campaign contributions.

The facts are different. If Washington did not want war with Iran it would not have provided the necessary weapons to Israel. It would not have deployed thousands of US troops to Israel, with a view toward the American soldiers being killed in an Iranian response to Israel’s attack, thus “forcing” the US to enter the war. Washington would not have built a missile defense system for Israel and would not be conducting joint exercises with the Israeli military to make sure it works.

If Washington did not want Israel to start the war, Washington would inform the Israeli government in no uncertain words that an Israeli strike on Iran means that the US will NOT veto the UN’s denunciation of Israel and the sanctions that would be placed on Israel as a war criminal state. Washington would tell Israel that it is good-bye to the billions of dollars that the bilked American taxpayers, foreclosed from their homes by fraudulent mortgages and from jobs by offshoring, hand over by compulsion to Israel to support Israel’’s crimes against humanity.

But, of course, Washington won’t prevent the war that it so fervently desires.
Neither will Washington’s NATO puppets. “Great” Britain does as it is told, subservient and occupied Germany, bankrupt France, Italy occupied with US air bases with a government infiltrated by the CIA, bankrupt Spain and Greece will all, in hopes of an outpouring of US dollars and devoid of any dignity or honor, support the new war that could end life on earth.

Only Russia and China can prevent the war.

Russia took the first step when the newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister for military affairs, Demitry Rogozin told a press conference in Brussels that Russia would regard an attack on Iran as “a direct threat to our security.”

Washington is counting on subverting Russia’s opposition to Washington’s next war. Washington can time the attack on Iran right after the March elections in Russia. When Putin wins again, the treasonous Russian opposition parties, financed by the CIA, will unleash protests in the streets. The subservient and utterly corrupt Western media will denounce Putin for stealing the election. The orchestrated protests in Russia will turn violent and discredit, if not prevent, any Russian response to the naked aggression against Iran.

For Rogozin’s warning to be effective in preventing war, China needs to enter the fray. Washington is banking on China’s caution. China deliberates and never rushes into anything. China’s deliberation will serve Washington’s war.

It is possible that the crazed neocon Washington government will have one more “victory” before Russia and China comprehend that they are next on the extermination list. As this date cannot be far off, life on earth might expire before the unpayable debts of US and EU countries come due.

About Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

Who Is Behind Barack Obama’s Rise to Stardom?

‘The Rothschild-Soros connection controls voter registration (ACORN), money laundering (Tides), billions in stimulus spending (Apollo), possibly the future of health care (SEIU), finance (Franks), and the Oval Office’s inner workings (Emanuel, Axelrod and Summers)’

By Victor Thorn — AFP

Is Barack Obama the product of a vast socialist conspiracy designed to undermine the fundamental tenets established by our Founding Fathers, all bankrolled and organized by Jewish financiers? The answer is unequivocally yes.

To deconstruct this labyrinth-like network, one must start at the top with Jewish businessman George Soros and his ties to the world’s most powerful Jewish banking family. Journalist, historian and economic researcher William Engdahl sets the stage.

“Soros has been identified as a front man for the Rothschild banking group. Understandably, neither he nor the Rothschilds wants this important fact to be public.” He continues, “Soros’s connection to the ultra-secret international finance circles of the Rothschilds is not just an ordinary or accidental banking connection.”

Finally, in a November 1, 1996 article, Engdahl writes, “From the very first days when Soros created his own investment fund in 1969, he owed his success to his relation to the Rothschild family banking network.”

Soros, through his Open Society Institute, funnels approximately $300 million a year into various liberal venues, including the influential MoveOn.org, which he owns. According to veteran researcher Anton Chaitkin, Soros also hand-picked Barack Obama to challenge Hillary Clinton (and ultimately defeat GOP nominee John McCain). On Sept. 5, 2008, he wrote, “Barack Obama came under special Soros sponsorship in the 2004 U.S. Senate race [and] raised $60,000 for his campaign.” After attaining victory, Obama met personally with Soros, then attended a fundraiser at his home.

Chaitkin elaborates further in “Soros Runs British Foreign Office Coup Against U.S. Elections,” an online article. “On December 4, 2006, two years after getting into the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama went to Soros’s New York office to be interviewed for higher office. Soros then took Obama into a conference room for other politically subordinate billionaires. With money and connections assured, Obama announced for the presidency soon afterward.”

Lets look at the words of Michelle Obama from a June 19, 2008 speech. She said, “We’re going to have to change our traditions and our history.” She explained further on Aug. 25, 2008. “All of us are driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do. We have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”

Who, precisely, will determine how our world should be? Mrs. Obama’s poignant phrase was lifted directly from Saul Alinsky, a Chicago-based Jewish extremist who penned the handbook for far-left causes, Rules for Radicals.

To implement his plans to undermine America, an intricate network needed to be established that would spread its tentacles throughout every aspect of society. One of the primary vehicles they utilized was the Tides Foundation, to which Soros contributed $13 million from 1997-2003. Established by Jewish antiwar activist Drummond Pike in 1976, this tax-exempt organization serves a very important function. According to researcher Ben Johnson of Front Page Magazine in September 2004, they “allow high-profile individuals to fund extremist organizations by ‘laundering’ their money through Tides, leaving no paper trail.”

In essence, after taking a 10 percent cut, Tides has fed over $300 million to entities such as cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, MoveOn.org and those who advocate abortion-on-demand, all the while assuring contributors that they won’t be publicly linked to these causes. One look at the Tide Foundation’s board reveals who calls the shots.

Drummond, senior vice president Gary Schwartz, and executive vice president Ellen Friedman are all Jewish. Pike also used his leverage to bail out ACORN’s welfare rights leader Wade Rathke, after he embezzled $948,507. To protect Rathke, ACORN never contacted law enforcement officials or sought prosecution. Instead, Stephanie Strom of The New York Times wrote on Aug. 17, 2008, “The organization announced that an anonymous supporter had agreed” to pay off the debt. That man was Drummond Pike. To cover their tracks, Arthur Schwartz (also Jewish) now coordinates their slippery public relations.

Of course, Barack Obama began his political career as the chief national trainer for ACORN, which now faces lawsuits in 14 states for voter fraud. Obama’s mentor as a community organizer in Chicago was Gerald Kellman, a Saul Alinksy proteg�. To begin his meteoric rise toward the White House, money originated from what Clarice Feldman of American Thinker calls the “Gang of Four”— Soros, Peter Lewis, Stephen Bing and Herbert & Marion Sandler. All are Jewish billionaires.

One of Obama’s most important backers was Marilyn Katz (Jewish), who oversaw security for the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and advocated violent guerrilla tactics toward the police (as did Obama associate William Ayers of the Weather Underground). Katz became a fundraising bundler for Obama, as well as hosting fundraisers and serving as an Illinois delegate at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

The Tides Foundation controls the San Francisco-based Apollo Alliance, which “absolutely believes that government is the solution to all social and economic problems.”

On July 28, Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity described how the “Apollo Alliance is designed to bring together the elements of organized labor with community organizers and green groups.” More importantly, Kerpen revealed that the Apollo Alliance “put out a draft stimulus bill in 2008 . . . that included almost everything that ended up being in the final stimulus bill.”

Van Jones, Obama’s new “green jobs czar,” described the Apollo Alliance as a “grand unified field theory for progressive left causes.” Who exactly is Van Jones? After participating in the 1992 L.A. riots (for which he was arrested and incarcerated), Jones told the East Bay Express on November 2, 2005, “I met all these young radical people of color—I mean, really radical Communists and anarchists. And it was like: this is what I need to be part of. I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of these people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy black revolutionary on April 28th, and when the verdicts came down on April 29th, I was a Communist.”

To round out this list, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) is primarily responsible for what is contained in Obama’s socialized health care bill. Andy Stern and Anna Burger lead the SEIU, both of whom are Jewish cronies of George Soros. Their vice president is Gerald Hudson (Jewish). Pushing this bill and the stimulus package to various media outlets is Robert Borosage (Jewish) of the Institute for America’s Future (also a huge recipient of Soros’s funding). Overseeing the housing and banking industries is none other than Barney Frank (Jewish), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Last but not least, Key members of Obama’s inner circle—David Axelrod, Lawrence Summers and Rahm Emanuel are Jewish and Bilderberg.

Putting this complicated matter into perspective is educational theorist and critic David Solway. On July 7, 2009 he wrote, “We Jews are a sly and surreptitious people . It pains me to admit this, but candor compels. . . . [T]he best way to bring America to its knees, to weaken its will to survive, to cleverly turn it against itself, was to do everything in our considerable arsenal of means to deliver the White House to Barack Obama.”

The conspiracy has been completed, and now the Jewish Rothschild-Soros connection controls voter registration (ACORN), money laundering (Tides), billions in stimulus spending (Apollo), possibly the future of health care (SEIU), finance (Franks), and the Oval Office’s inner workings (Emanuel, Axelrod and Summers).

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.

Subscribe to American Free Press. Online subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS ELECTRONIC BOOK – HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR – By Michael Piper.

Print subscriptions: 52 issues crammed into 47 weeks of the year plus six free issues of Whole Body Health: $59 Order on this website or call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS .

(Issue # 33, August 17, 2009, AMERICAN FREE PRESS)

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/behind_barack_obama_188.html

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute – as long as full credit is given to American Free Press – 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

Staff

Under a False Flag

Our “friends,” the Israelis, implicate us in war crimes

by Justin Raimondo, January 16, 2012 www.antiwar.com

Will Israel succeed in dragging us into war with Iran?

If not, it won’t be for lack of trying. Their influential lobby in the US has been agitating for a US strike since the last year of the Bush presidency, when they almost succeeded in pulling it off: fortunately for us, Bush demurred, perhaps because he didn’t want his legacy to be two unwinnable and disastrous wars instead of just one.

Israel was to be the spearhead, with the US providing back up support, as the Guardian reported at the time:

“Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.”

Deterred from firing the first shots of World War III, the Israelis didn’t give up. Instead, they turned to other less direct means to achieve their goal. As Mark Perry reports on foreignpolicy.com:

“Buried deep in the archives of America’s intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush’s administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives – what is commonly referred to as a‘false flag’ operation.”

You bet those memos are buried deep – lest Americans discover that their faithful “allies”are trying to implicate them in war crimes.

Jundallah is a terrorist organization, Sunni-oriented and linked to al-Qaeda, that has murdered Iranian civilians in bombings and other attacks within Iran: their ostensible goal is to “liberate”Iranian (and Pakistani) Baluchistan. According to the memos, the Israelis recruited these terrorists right out in the open in London, where Mossad operatives – posing as CIA officers – met with Jundallah officials.“It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with,”Perry quotes one intelligence officer as saying. “They apparently didn’t give a damn what we thought.”

Of course not – and why should they? After all, we’ve given them a pass every time: when Jonathan Pollard stole what US officials described as the intelligence community’s “crown jewels” and passed them off to the Russians; when they stole our trade and military secrets and passed them off to China: when they were tracking the 9/11 conspirators and didn’t tell us what Mohammed Atta and his crew were up to. They took our “foreign aid” with one hand, and stabbed us in the back with the other.

What did we do about it, and what were the consequences for the Israelis?

The answer is: nothing, and none: nor has the story changed much this time around. Perry reports:

“Asenior administration official vowed to‘take the gloves off’ with Israel… but the United States did nothing – a result that the officer attributed to‘political and bureaucratic inertia.’”

“’In the end,’ the officer noted, ‘it was just easier to do nothing than to, you know, rock the boat.’ Even so, at least for a short time, this same officer noted, the Mossad operation sparked a divisive debate among Bush’s national security team, pitting those who wondered‘just whose side these guys [in Israel] are on’ against those who argued that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’”

Oh well, I suppose you could call the cancellation of those planned joint US-Israeli military exercises more than nothing. Although Washington is claiming the cancellation is due to a desire to dial down tensions in the region, that didn’t stop them from ordering their warships to the Persian Gulf. In any case, the cancellation of “Austere Challenge 12” will hardly stop the Israelis from pursuing their plan to provoke the Iranians into attacking US facilities and/or personnel in the region. After all, since there are never any significant consequences attendant on their bad behavior, what have they got to lose?

The Americans don’t dare come out in public and take Tel Aviv to task: the powerful Israel lobby would have the President’s scalp, and Congress – aptly characterized as “Israeli-occupied territory” by the politically incorrect Pat Buchanan – would probably pass a resolution condemning their own President if Obama dared step out of line. And then there is all that campaign money the Democrats hope to scarf up this worrisome election season: taking the Israelis out to the wood shed would enrage the big money-bags who make unconditional support for Israel the price of their support.

Why should the Israelis care that their actions put US personnel in jeopardy, inviting attacks in kind from Tehran? Iranian attacks on US military personnel stationed in Iraq could easily inflict thousands of casualties, and this is especially true now that the US footprint is considerably reduced – but that would be the Americans’ problem. The Israelis, for their part, had the perfect “false flag” operation going: neither the Iranians nor top Jundallah cadre knew where the support was really coming from.

Jundallah’s leader, Abdolmalek Rigi,was captured by the Iranians and executed in the summer of 2010: before he was offed, however, he did an interview with Iranian media in the course of which he recalled a 2007 meeting in Morocco with a group of individuals who were supposed to be “NATO officials: “When we thought about it,” said Rigi, “we came to the conclusion that they are either Americans acting under NATO cover or Israelis.”

Rigi was just another pawn in the game as far as Israelis are concerned: they aren’t too particular about the types of unwitting allies they recruit. Rigi personally murdered his brother-in-law for disobeying orders, cutting his head off while Dan Rather’s cameras rolled. Kidnappings are a Jundallah favorite, along with videotaped decapitations. The Israelis have a whole collection of such charming types: they are arming and training the separatists of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), who conduct terrorist attacks on civilian targets in Turkey, and are doing the same for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a weird Marxist cult formerly succored by Saddam Hussein, which has carried out terrorist attacks in Iran.

These are the allies and proxies of “the only democracy in the Middle East”!

The tactical objective behind Israeli support for Jundallah is simple: magnifying tensions between the US and Iran takes us farther down the road to war. When Rigi was captured and “confessed” on Iranian television, he averred that he was a tool of the CIA and claimed he had recently been on a US military base in Afghanistan: no doubt the Israelis were well pleased with their“student.” He had learned his lessons well.

Israeli sponsorship of Jundallah, the PKK, and MEK all point to Tel Aviv’s underlying strategic perspective, and that is a policy of sowing chaos whenever and wherever possible. If the idea is to atomize Israel’s neighbors, and reduce them to a condition of internal chaos, then this is surely the best way to go about it: by sponsoring every separatist and violently crazed sect that will take their cash.

“Flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports,” as Perry put it, the Israelis arrived in London on the lookout for recruits. We know where those American dollars came from – straight out of the pockets of American taxpayers, who are forced to shell out over $3 billion every year in “foreign aid” to Israel. But what about those American passports? Maybe they came from the same place these passports originated. In the brouhaha over the Mossad’s theft of passports in New Zealand, Great Britain, Ireland, France, and elsewhere, no mention was ever made of any “cloned” American passports – but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

The Israelis cannot take out Iran all on their own: they need the US to deliver the death blow and execute a program of“regime change” on the ground. Then and only then will their goal of regional hegemony be realized. That’s why they’ve mobilized all their resources, including their numerous and vocal political allies in the United States, to pull out all the stops and provoke a shooting war between the US and Iran. That such an event would lead to an economic downturn that would make the present one seem relatively prosperous is irrelevant, from the narrow perspective of a rabid Israeli nationalist. And that is precisely who is making policy in Israel today: the most extreme right-wing ultra-nationalist government since the founding of the Jewish state.

To these extremists, the Americans are an obstacle rather than a valued ally. And they have increasing power in Israel, in the government and in society at large. Fundamentalists are pushing the separation of the sexes, and the powerful religious parties are campaigning for expanded “settlements,” i.e. more provocations aimed at the downtrodden Palestinians.

Isn’t it time we gave our“special relationship” with Israel a second look? As Israeli agents covertly seek to incite the peoples of the Middle East – including the Iranians – against us, one has to wonder, like those intelligence analysts cited above: just whose side are these guys on, anyway?

The answer is: they’re on their own side. The question Perry’s scoop ought to raise in the mind of every American is: when are we going to start being on our own side?

HERE ARE FOUR ARTICLES FOR YOU TO READ AND WE URGE YOU TO READ ALL FOUR

WHAT KIND OF PRESDIENT WOULD RON PAUL BE?

By Lattigo Smith

I cannot answer that question, nor can anyone else. We watch what politicians do and we base our opinion on what they do and not what they say. Politicians say what their handlers think will appeal to the public.

Most, we can't say all, because there may be a few politicians that this does not apply to, but we have met very few that this statement is not true about, have two goals in life: The first is to get elected to some political office and two: The second goal is to stay in office for the rest of their life and EVERYTHING they say or do is done to keep them in office.

They don't care about their country or their family. Harsh words you say. Yes and we fully believe what we say. We can say this, because their descendants will have to live under the system that they have created and the rulers of the future will not care what happens to the descendants of those that created the system, therefore their descendants will suffer along with everyone else and this does not seem to bother them. This makes such people a threat to society and they should all be run out of office.

We know what Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman, Santorum and Perry would do once they get to the White House, because we know what they did while they were in office. They were all internationalist in what they did. They trashed the Constitution and supported the growth of big oppressive government. We could say that they are nothing more than a Bush-Obama clone and it will be business as usual once they are elected. They will be nothing but puppets; the same as Bush and Obama are. They will be controlled by the same people that control Obama. The Controllers stay the same, no matter who occupies the White House or congress.

Ron Paul could be a different story. We don't know what kind of president Paul would make, but we do know what kind of congressman he has been and we believe that he will be the same kind of president.

We are for Paul for the simple reason that the media, including the so-called right-wing commentators and most politicians of both political parties are against him. The men with money to spend are against him, because they are afraid that he could be a problem if he was elected president. These people are doing all they can to persuade the public to reject Ron Paul and that alone should be enough for anyone to seek to see Paul elected. If Paul would be bad for these people, he could be very good for the rest of us.

President John F. Kennedy was the only president in my lifetime of 85 years that really tried to do something good for the country and they murdered him. These people don't want anyone in the White House that wants to see the people treated fairly. These people are not for the American people, but only for themselves. THINK ABOUT THAT.

Romney Tied to Terrorism

January 13, 2012 dave

Links to radical group operating inside Iran a cause for concern

By Ralph Forbes in American Free Press www.americanfreepress.net

GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney looked like a deer caught in the headlights when he was asked if he supported an international, anti-American terrorist organization with a bloody record for killing innocent civilians thousands of times worse than al Qaeda. This “expert on international affairs” claimed he never had heard of them. Then, like a lying politician, he promised: “I’ll take a look at the issue.” Video taken at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire shows Romney quickly waving the issue aside and hurrying on to another question.

Romney’s campaign counts on the fact that the public never hears of this group or his campaign’s covert connections to them. Few Americans—besides AFP readers who read about this in the Dec. 16, 2011, edition—have even heard of the fanatical, terrorist group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (People’s Mujahedin of Iran; MEK or MKO). This is thanks to the big media’s general cover-up, and largely because it is an Israeli asset.

For months independent investigative journalists have asked Romney about his campaign’s ties to the MEK—but he never responds. No wonder, because if the American people ever found out about MEK, and the Romney campaign’s ties to it, they would demand he be tried for treason.

One of Romney’s chief advisers is neocon Mitchell Reiss. Reiss not only heads the 50-plus top neocons that lied America into the Iraq war—but he is also a leader in the stealth campaign for quietly removing MEK from the “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” (FTOs) list.

MEK was one of the first to be put on the FTO list because of its boasting of assassinations of U.S. servicemen, attacks on U.S. diplomats, murders of American citizens and suicide bombings. MEK was the only faction of Iranians who wanted to kill the American hostages in 1979. After the release of the Americans, the MEK went on a rampage and murdered possibly tens of thousands of Iranians in a decade-long terror campaign.

When George H.W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and other neocons gave germ warfare technology, poison gas and other chemical weapons to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein so he would invade Iran, MEK joined Saddam in slaughtering its fellow Iranians.

After Saddam fell, Washington ordered U.S. troops to protect MEK from the wrath of the Iraqis. George W. Bush gave MEK hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars to commit terrorism in Iraq. Much of that money was spent on luxuries by MEK leaders in London and Paris.

MEK has bribed congressmen and other high officials with hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaker’s fees. Aiding and abetting MEK is still illegal. They get around this by using front groups and shells, laundering the money through speaker bureaus, high-dollar public relations outfits and law firms.

Another reason they want off the FTO list is they have thousands of followers in camps in Iraq and are no longer protected by U.S. troops, so they want to bring these trained killers and terrorists here.

Posted in: National News

What would you say if this had been Egypt that attacked an American ship in international waters? It was not Egypt, but israel that ried to sink this ship, reaqd on and see what happened.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Survivor of Israeli Attack Reveals Secrets of 1967 High Seas Massacre

January 13, 2012 dave

By Victor Thorn

AMERICAN FREE PRESS and its predecessor, The Spotlight, are the only national newspapers that have regularly given coverage over the past quarter-century to the Israeli naval and air attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967. During a Dec. 30, 2011 interview with Phil Tourney, a Liberty survivor and co-author of the book What I Saw That Day, the Navy veteran revealed to AFP one more bombshell that few have ever been willing to discuss about the duplicitous attack.

“Forty-four years after the fact, I can only come to one conclusion about what happened on June 8, 1967,” said Tourney. “The USS Liberty was set up by the U.S. government to be sunk by the Israeli military so that they could blame it on Egypt. After this attack, two American aircrafts were launched carrying nuclear-tipped missiles in order to bomb Cairo. That city was within three minutes of being obliterated. Without a doubt, it would have started WWIII.”

Tourney lived through what has become the greatest military cover-up and conspiracy in this nation’s history. Thirty-four crewmembers were killed during this Israeli assault, and 174 were wounded, most of them critically.

One of the subjects discussed during this interview was, what would happen if the American public finally had their eyes opened about this unmitigated act of war perpetrated by the nation of Israel.

“If the truth ever came out,” Tourney began, “it would change history and how people felt about the Israeli state. If the mainstream media devoted an entire week of stories to the USS Liberty and exactly what happened, the American people would be up in arms, begging for blood. Even though I’ve been accused of being an anti-Semite for trying to tell the truth, everyone should remember one important point—USS Liberty crewmembers didn’t murder anyone. The state of Israel did. The truth will change history.”

When asked to elaborate, Tourney said: “Things would change drastically in regard to Zionism. There would no longer be any money, aid or weaponry being sent to Israel. If people were interested enough to study this subject, they’d find out further that Adm. [Thomas] Moorer and Capt. Ward Boston wrote scathing articles to the Navy Board of Inquiry saying its report [on the Liberty] was a complete lie and sham.”

Tourney added that “Israel ruined many lives that day—not only survivors, but families that lost loved ones, too. Many of the wounded have long since died, taken their own lives, been thrown in prison or are messed up in the head.”

Today, Tourney’s feelings on how government officials turned their backs on him and his shipmates are heartfelt, sincere and poignant.

“It’s like parents hiring a hit man to kill you,” he added. “Then they go to the prison and spring your killer. That’s exactly what the U.S. government did to us. When they put a gun to our heads, they put a gun to everyone’s head.”

LEAD-UP TO THE ATTACK

As one of the self-described “walking wounded,” Tourney explained what transpired in the hours leading up to this pivotal event:

“On June 7, one day before the attack, I was aboard the Liberty, which was the world’s most sophisticated spy ship,” said Tourney. “We were heading toward the Mediterranean to monitor the Six-Day War so that we could communicate our findings directly back to the National Security Agency in Fort Meade. They received our communications immediately because we bounced microwave signals off the Moon.”

Only 20 years old at the time, Tourney took immense pride in his ship and its mission. He also felt safe in the supposed notion that Israel was our ally.

“I’d heard all through life how badly the Israelis had been treated,” he said. “I never knew any better. I never did any research. So, I believed it. But later I found out that historians were either wrong or they lied. Even on the morning of June 8 while on sound and security watch, I felt safe because our good friend Israel was protecting us. In the distance, I could see black smoke rising from bombs being dropped, yet gave little thought to being attacked, especially since large U.S. flags flying from the Liberty gave us cover.”

At 2 p.m. on June 8, Tourney’s life would be forever changed. His words are fueled by the sheer horror of what he endured that day:

“Jet aircrafts came in firing and strafing our ship,” he said. “Within minutes they took out hundreds of antennae and all of our .450-caliber machine guns. We were defenseless.”

But all those aboard were not without hope. Utilizing true American ingenuity and never giving up their fighting spirit, Tourney described a miraculous effort.

“About half-an-hour into the attack,” he said, “one of our men stretched a long wire so that we could transmit a message to the Sixth Fleet: ‘Under Attack by Unmarked Fighters. Send Help.’ A number of ships received this SOS, and soon Capt. Joseph Tully of the USS Saratoga ordered planes to rescue us.”

However, in an act that goes well beyond betrayal into the realm of full-fledged treason, Tourney laid out how Liberty became a ship without a country.

“Defense Secretary Robert McNamara contacted the Saratoga and recalled the fighters, telling them not to aid our ship,” he said. “But, showing true courage, Tully re-launched the jets, without authorization . . . After the second set of fighter jets were dispatched, the president of the United States—Lyndon Johnson—personally recalled them,” said Tourney.

Tourney says Johnson told Tully: “I don’t give a [expletive] if that ship goes to the bottom and every sailor is lost. We will not embarrass our ally, Israel.”

If the audacity of this heartless command wasn’t bad enough, Tourney interjected with his own appraisal of the situation.

“The only message we’d sent from the makeshift wire that had been strung was: ‘Attacked by unmarked aircraft’,” he added. “We never initially identified the attackers. So how did LBJ know Israel was behind the assault?”

Following a hellish two-hour attack where Israeli jets dropped napalm on Liberty, pierced its sides with 850 cannon holes and blasted open a gaping 40-foot-by-40-foot hole with torpedoes, a “prepare to abandon ship” order had been given. But Tourney tells what ensued: “The [Israelis] immediately shot our life rafts in the water. They sunk two of them and took a third aboard their boat as a trophy.”

When asked what he did in the aftermath, Tourney replied: “We kept looking for American help because we knew they got our message. But none ever arrived. So that night, I held a lantern as a doctor operated on my good friend Gary Blanchard. I could tell he wasn’t long for this world.. . . [T]he doctor cut Gary open from his chest to groin. . . . [H]is kidneys were shot up. He died a few moments later.”

AFP inquired as to Tourney’s state of mind at that moment, surrounded by death and chaos.

“You have to remember,” he began. “our ship had been on fire with napalm, and Liberty’s fuel tanks were burning. I was filled with rage and anger. We’re the greatest nation on Earth, and no one came to help. . . At that point I realized: We’re going to have to do this on our own. My biggest fear, though, was that the Israelis would return and finish us off. Plus, let’s be clear, every crewmember knew Israel was responsible, because we saw their flag on the torpedo boats.”

A day or two later as Liberty limped toward a port in Malta, Adm. Isaac Kidd assembled the survivors in small groups and, after removing his stars, demanded to know what occurred.

After learning the truth, a red-faced Kidd pinned his stars back on his uniform and said, “If any of you ever repeat a word, I’ll make sure you end up in the penitentiary, or worse,” Tourney said.

Stunned by these remarks, Tourney told AFP: “I thought he was going to say that America would make sure that Israel paid for what it did to us. But instead, I think the government hoped that our ship would sink before it ever reached Malta.”

Get Your Copy of What I Saw That Day: (softcover, 282 pages, #WIS, $30 plus $5 S&H) available from AFP’s FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS. Call (888) 699-NEWS to charge. Send cash, check or money order to FAB, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, #100, Washington, D.C. 20003.

——————————————————————————-

McCain, Bachmann Confronted Over ‘Incident’

By Victor Thorn

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) knows the truth about what happened to the USS Liberty, because his father was directly involved in the cover-up. During a Jan. 4 interview with AFP, James Morris, the editor of a news and commentary website entitled “America Hijacked,” referenced a monumentally historical event when Liberty survivor Capt. Ward Boston approached McCain at a political fundraiser and told him he’d worked with his father.

According to Morris, McCain’s face abruptly turned white before he ushered Boston away and moved on to the next person in line.

“McCain and his admiral father covered up the USS Liberty attack on orders that came down from the highest corridors of the U.S. government,” Morris said. Liberty survivor Tourney agrees. “McCain has been part of the cover-up and knew exactly what happened to us,” Tourney said. “This fact has been documented since at least 1981. But his reaction leaves a lot to be desired. He claims: ‘It was a tragic mistake. Forget it. Get over it. Israel paid reparations.’ . . . McCain won’t tell people that most of the crewmen only received $200 or $250 in compensation.”

On Dec. 29, 2011, during a national radio broadcast from DesMoines, Iowa that was simulcast on C-SPAN, host Jan Mickelson had as his guest Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who at the time was still vying for the Republican presidential nomination. After a brief introduction and a few pleasantries, Mickelson took calls from his listeners.

The first to dial in was Morris, who addressed the guest with a taboo subject.

“I suggest Michele Bachmann do a Google search for Cindy McCain and the USS Liberty,” Morris told listeners to the radio show. “Israel is not an ally of America. They deliberately murdered American sailors and Marines on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967. Michele Bachmann is willing to overlook that. She’s also spreading lies about Ron Paul, who is not going to put our country at risk militarily. Michele Bachmann is a neocon Israel firster. She’s willing to get us into World War III by initiating a war with Iran. [Iran’s president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad never threatened to wipe Israel off the map.”

At this point, Mickelson abruptly cut off Morris and snidely remarked, “He’s on a Ron Paul rant there.” He then asked Mrs. Bachmann if she had any comments.

Completely ignoring all references to the Liberty, Mrs. Bachmann instead repeated a mantra indicative of her slavish devotion to Israel.

“I do believe Israel is our ally, and we need to stand for Israel,” she said.

Yet again, the unprovoked attack by a foreign power on an American ship remained the 800-pound gorilla in the room—ignored by the media and politicians that are supposed to stand with our servicemen against such hostil Media Accounts of Syrian Unrest Crafted to Twist Public Opinion

January 13, 2012 dave

By Richard Walker

Since the middle of 2011 the Western mainstream media has been parroting allegations of genocide in Syria at the hands of the country’s security forces. So far, the media has unquestioningly reported these claims, knowing full well that the sworn enemies of Syria’s current leader, Bashar al-Assad, have been the ones promulgating the stories. Guess who these enemies are? They include neocon war hawks in Israel and Washington, who have supported regime change in Syria since 2003, and their allies in Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

One prominent body, which has been the source for many of the headline-grabbing stories about Syria, is the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in London, whose leaders have chosen to hide their identities. When the observatory fed a story to the Western media that the Syrian military had murdered one of its generals because he defected to run protests against the regime, no one checked with his family. Eventually, the general’s son had to show journalists a medical certificate confirming his father had died of kidney failure years ago, before anyone believed him.

A story that captured the most attention at the close of 2011 was one claiming massacres were taking place daily in the city of Homs, about 100 miles north of the capital, Damascus. The Observatory provided Western news outlets with regular updates, alleging Syrian troops were bombarding the city and were dug in all around it. It was claimed as many as 30 civilians had been shot dead in one day alone.

On Dec. 28, however, monitors from the Arab League visited Syria and traveled to Homs to check out the claims of massacres. Contrary to the stories, the monitors reported they found the atmosphere in Homs “reassuring” and announced that the Syrian government appeared to be in compliance with an agreed-upon peace plan between it and protesters throughout the country.

In many of the reports condemning the regime, there was no mention of the rebel outfits operating like lawless gangs across the country. Those gangs have been engaged in a deliberate campaign to destabilize Syria, and there is evidence they have been backed by Israeli and Western intelligence agencies.

In another report, the Syrian National Council, which is opposed to Assad, told media outlets that Arab League monitors who visited Homs had been duped. Council representatives made the ridiculous claim that the Syrian army had somehow swapped thousands of residents with regime supporters, who were then paraded in front of Arab monitors. This story was published in the mainstream without ever being fact-checked.

Americans should not forget that, in 2003, Congress gave the White House authority to attack Syria under the Syrian Accountability Act of 2003. It remains in force to this day, providing Barack Obama with the authority to wage a clandestine campaign to bring down Assad.
——
Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

Posted in: National News

lities.

——
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93 and Other Sept. 11 Mysteries Explored.

Posted in: National News

THERE ARE TWO ARTICLES TODAY

RonPaul Should Be Proud to Be ‘Outside the Mainstream’
The Texas congressman is the only Republican presidential candidate who breaks decisively with the status quo.

Jacob Sullum| January 4, 2012 Writing in www.reason.com

"I don't think Ron Paul represents the mainstream," says Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich, another of the Texas congressman's opponents in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination, uses stronger terms, declaring, "Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American."

As last night's resulting Iowa suggest, the "mainstream" to which Romney and Gingrich refers not defined by voters; it is the range of opinion deemed acceptable by leaders of the two major political parties. The mainstream has brought us a national debt the size of the national economy, a bloated yet over extended military that has strayed far from its mission of defending the country, and a lawless executive branch that usurps legislative powers and violates civil liberties.
If that is what the mainstream represents, it is no place for decent Americans who support smaller government. Romney and Gingrich may think they are discrediting Paul, but they are actually recommending him as the only candidate who breaks decisively with the status quo.
Although all of the Republican candidates pay lip service to fiscal restraint, Paul is the only one to proposes actual spending cuts, as opposed to smaller increases. His plan would balance the federal budget by 2015. By contrast, Romney aims to "put us on a path to a balanced budget," while Gingrich vaguely promises to "balance the budget by growing the economy, controlling spending, implementing moneysaving reforms, and replacing destructive policies and regulatory agencies with new approaches."
The fiscal incontinence of the Republicans not named Paul is vividly illustrated by their attitude toward defense spending: More is always better, and any cuts, even if they are only reductions in projected increases, recklessly endanger national security. Romney assails "the Obama administration's irresponsible defense cuts," which would leave the Pentagon's budget bigger in a decade than it is today. The idea of going any further—say, reducing military spending to the amount appropriated in 2007, when the country was hardly helpless against its adversaries—is anathe mato Romney and Gingrich.

In this atmosphere, Paul's insistence that "there's a difference between military spending and defense spending" is a breath of fresh air, and so are his warnings about the consequences of failing to make that distinction. Although his opponents try to isolate him by calling him an "isolationist," his views are more in tune with public opinion than theirs.

Paul supported military action against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies following the 9/11 attacks, but he opposed the occupation of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, and the air war against Libya, saying the reoperations were not grounded in national defense. Recent polls indicate that two-thirds of Americans agree with his judgment about Afghanistan and Iraq, while up to three-fifths questioned the intervention in Libya. Are all of these people "outside the mainstream" as well?

In addition to its role in military adventures, an elastic definition of national security is the main justification for the steady expansion of presidential power, which has accelerated in response to Islamicterrorism. The New York Times recently asked the presidential candidates, "Which executive powers, if any, claimed and exercised by the Bush and/or Obama administrations were unconstitutional?"Paul cited unauthorized wars, warrantless wiretaps, torture, indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, and the assassination of people the president    unilaterally identifies as enemies. He said the excesses of George W. Bush's counterterrorism policies were "among the worst abuses of executive authority in the nation's history," adding that Bush's successor has been worse in some respects.

None of the other candidates could think of a single instance in     which Bush or Obama exceeded his authority in the name of fighting terrorism or protecting national security. Romney's chief example of unconstitutional executive action was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is actually an example of unconstitutional legislative action. Gingrich said the problem is too little executive power, thanks to interference by the Supreme Court. If this is the mainstream, I want out.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and                              a nationally syndicated columnist. Follow him on Twitter.

© Copyright 2012 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

t’s Tight in Iowa

January 06, 2012dave

• The long, strange road to the Iowa caucuses detailed • Top three candidates separated by small percentage

By Victor Thorn

With more plot twists than a daytime soap opera, the long, strange road leading to Iowa’s Jan. 3 caucuses has seen scandals, embarrassments, surprises and a jockeying for position among frontrunners that has been ever changing on a weekly basis. The big question that must be asked is: Have American voters been duped by the manipulative use of polls to prepare them to accept a candidate that has already been selected for them?

Following John McCain’s disastrous 2008 presidential run, Mitt Romney immediately emerged as the 2012 frontrunner. With money, organization and name recognition, Romney has devoted the last decade of his life vying for the Republican nomination. With steadiness and an unflappable demeanor, pundits agree that it was his race to lose.

However, an array of wild cards soon emerged to confound the situation. Namely, McCain’s vice presidential running mate Sarah Palin, New York City real estate mogul Donald Trump and New Jersey’s bombastic Gov. Chris Christie all considered throwing their hats in the ring to challenge Romney, whose “made for TV appearance” seemed a bit too certain.

First out of the gates was Gov. Palin, who embarked on a glitzy bus tour that had media hounds considering the possibility of what would happen if this charismatic, extremely polarizing figure jumped in with guns a-blazing. But with high negative ratings, Mrs. Palin opted out.

And who can forget last spring when Trump created headlines by none-too-subtly questioning Barack Obama’s legitimacy as president due to speculation concerning his alleged Kenyan birth? But with the release of a laughably-forged birth certificate on April 27, 2011, that many computer experts contend had been manipulated, Trump mysteriously dropped this hot-button issue. Par for the course, a compliant lapdog media demanded that this controversy had now been settled and was no longer news. Shortly thereafter, with his mission accomplished to set aside the “birther” debate, Trump assumed the role of a boorish commentator that repeated the same tired mantra on show after show.

Finally, the hard-charging Chris Christie had to convince supporters, “Short of suicide, I don’t really know what I’d have to do to convince you people that I’m not running.”

With these three political superstars now out of the picture, the field crystallized to prepare for a series of hotly contested debates that soon became characterized as a “reality TV show.” These showdowns coincided with an ongoing game of musical chairs that eventually allowed nearly every GOP candidate to assume the lead in various polls.

Former Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty began the process by posing a short-lived challenge to Romney. But when Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) won the Aug. 13 Ames, Iowa straw poll, she soon emerged as a media darling to the right, while members of the liberal press portrayed her as a flaky religious zealot. Bachmann’s slavish devotion to Israel didn’t endear her to those who are suspicious of Zionist control over the American media and political system.

As if following a script, Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s entry into the race bumped Bachmann into a nosediving spiral from which she never recovered. Yet, Perry’s ineptitude soon became apparent as he made gaffe after gaffe. At one point during a debate he couldn’t name the three government agencies that he wanted to eliminate, while another “oops” moment led many to deduce that his intelligence level was even below that of George W. Bush’s—a scary notion, indeed.

Adding to the furor was Perry’s bizarre executive order to have all 12-year-old girls in the state vaccinated with Gardasil, a cervical cancer vaccine. Perhaps the final nail in Perry’s coffin came when he enraged conservatives after declaring them “heartless” for not defending his policy of giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens.

Perry’s crash-and-burn self-destruction facilitated the rise of black businessman and former Federal Reserve honcho Herman Cain, who championed a much-ballyhooed tax plan called 9-9-9. Although his tax plan was full of holes, Cain’s real problems arose when a string of women stepped forward to accuse the candidate of either sexually harassing them or engaging in extramarital affairs. Unable to withstand the heat, Cain bowed out and faded into obscurity.

Along the way, GOP gatekeepers allowed former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson to participate in a handful of debates. Largely ignored, Johnson did land one memorable line when asked about the economy. He quipped, “My next-door neighbor’s two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration.” Regrettably, Republican bigwigs blackballed Johnson and refused to grant him a place on the debate stage, as they similarly did to former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer.

Johnson recently switched party affiliations and is now seeking the Libertarian nomination.

With a new vacuum opened after Cain’s departure, Newt Gingrich surged to lead the pack. An arrogant elitist and ultimate Beltway insider—epitomized by a commercial where he sat beside Nancy Pelosi to promote global warming—Gingrich relished his role as the “smartest man in the room.”

Soon, however, Gingrich went under the microscope for his close affiliation with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the U.S. government-sponsored mortgage giants. Romney also confronted Gingrich on his bizarre idea that America should establish lunar colonies to mine minerals. Gingrich also advocated using a complex arrangement of space mirrors to light U.S. highways.

Fortunately, conservative infatuation with Gingrich waned in the following weeks, only to be filled—lo and behold—by another Israel-firster, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.). As is Romney, Santorum is rabidly pro-military expansionist, pro-AIPAC and pro-Zionist. Santorum unabashedly advocates the launching of an unconstitutional American military attack on Iran and its nuclear capabilities that would undoubtedly begin World War III.

Amid all this choreographed shuffling and razzle dazzle, Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) has remained an unwavering force to be reckoned with. The devotion among his core base was evident in Iowa, where only days prior to the caucuses he was cited as the odds-on favorite to achieve victory. An ardent constitutionalist, Federal Reserve foe and proponent of state’s rights, Paul is the only candidate that hasn’t been accused by his colleagues of being a flip-flopper. Or, as Paul has stated in numerous interviews: “I’ve been delivering the same message for 30 years. America is now finally catching up with me.”

Last but not least, as AFP’s Michael Collins Piper has dutifully noted over the past few months, former Utah Gov. John Huntsman is being groomed to play a potential Ross Perot-style spoiler after coming under the tutelage of Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild. If Huntsman decides to pursue this endeavor, it could mean the creation of a new internationalist party—something the world’s elites have been salivating over for many years now.

GOD IS ANGRY And He has good reasons

By Bill Gibbons

"These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren" (PS. 6: 16-19. --- "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. PS. 7:11.

YES! God is getting angry with the citizens of the world and He is punishing them for their evil deeds, which are many in the sight of God. We wonder if the world's citizens will ever get wise to the fact, that it is a BAD IDEA to have God angry with them. Will they ever learn, that God has rules and He expects His rules to be obeyed.

God says, the world is His and He alone has the power to do as He pleases with the world. God got so fed up with the Old World: that, in the days of Noah, He destroyed the entire world's population, with the exception of eight people. God destroyed the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, because they had almost completely turned the cities in to the worst cities in existence at that time. The cities were overrun by perverts, that is homosexuals. Today, the United States is being turned into a state where perversion is fast becoming respectable as it must have been in Sodom and Gomorrah. God says this sin is an ABOMONITION to Him and He is getting angry with us for allowing this to happen.

Along about 33 A.D. the Romans, at the urging of the Jewish leaders, crucified God's Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. God got angry, but he was merciful to the nation and gave them another 40 years to repent of this worst of all sins. The nation did not repent, but instead persecuted His followers by jailing some and murdering others. GOD GOT ANGRY! He poured out His wrath against that nation and turned the Roman legions against the people. First century historians say, that every tree in Israel that would hold a Jew had a Jew hanging on the tree. Thousands of Jews were slaughtered and many thousands more were crucified. Many were sold into slavery and taken from the land of Israel.

Where does Israel stand with God today? To show you the answer to this question, we must go to the only one who has the answer to that question. That person is Almighty God Himself. To do this we turn to the Book of Romans and quote most of chapter eleven:

"I say then, Hath God castaway His people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2. God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew. Wot ye not what the Scripture saith of Elijah? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

3. Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars ; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

4. But what sayeth the answer of God to Him? I have reserved to Myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the images of Baal.

5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6. And if by grace, then is it no more works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (Here we see the beginning of problems for many modern Jews).

8. According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. (God did this, because they rejected His Son ,which He offered to them).

9. And Davis saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompense unto them:

10. Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their backs alway. (So David, a man they looked up to, says, they get what they deserve for what they have done).

11. I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (This is, as God knew it would work to provoke the Jews, but it did not lead them to Jesus Christ, it only hardened their hearts against God).

12. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?

13: For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14. If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them (Some Jews were indeed saved in Paul's day and a few may even be saved today, but very few).

15. For if the casting away of hem be the reconciling of the world, what shallthe receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

16. For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

17. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree wert grafted in among them and with them partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree:

18. Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

19. Thou wilt say then, the branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

20. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: (Fear, because if you fall away from God as the Jews did, then you can be cut off from God the same as the Jew and that is exactly what is happening to the Gentile world today. We are turning our backs on the grace of God and that is a fatal mistake).

21. For if God spared not the natural branches (that is the Jews) take heed lest He also spare thee not. (God cut the Jew off from Him because of unbelief and they will remain cut off until the Lord returns and there is nothing anyone can do about it. To return to God, the Jew must repent, which most Jews refuse to do).

22. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in hisgoodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. (Most of the people of the world have already been cut off because of unbelief and that is why the world is on the brink of being placed under the New World Order, which will be a hell on earth. It will be hell on earth, because Satan will be in COMPLETE charge of the world).

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graff them in again. (We will remind you: That it is God that must graff them back in again. You cannot do that as long as they remain in unbelief. Many of you professing Christians treat the Jews as if he was something special, while God says the Jew is no longer His favorite. Today, the true believer, those redeemed by the Blood of Jesus Christ are Gods people and not the Jew.

(How can the Jew be a favorite of God, while he is teaching his children that Jesus Christ is not God, that Jesus Christ is not the Saviour; therefore leading his children to HELL FOREVER? Can God bless anyone that would lead his children to Hell? THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING NO!)

24. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (Nothing is too hard for God, but to the natural mind He is saying it is much easier for Him to Graft the Jew back into the olive tree, then it was to graft the wild and evil gentile into the olive tree).

25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of his mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, UNTIL THE FULLNESS OF THE GENILES BE COME IN. (The Jew is still blind because he rejected the Saviour, Jesus Christ, and he will remain blind until the Saviour returns to lift that veil from his eyes).

26. And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" RO. 11:1-26.

Right now Israel is cut off from God and the Gentiles are in the are in the picture, but this will change when the Lord Jesus Christ returns to earth. The Jews will come back into favor with God and ALL Israel will be saved, but not until the Lord returns.

So then, we have seen that God destroyed the old world, Sodom and Gomorrah and Israel for one reason: Sin became so black in the eyes of God that He was forced to destroy them. It is easy to see, that the entire world is on the brink of suffering this same disaster. This coming calamity will be known as the Great Tribulation. The tribulation is the ultimate disaster the world is facing.

In the meantime, we see many smaller disasters and the disasters are becoming more common and more often as the people dive deeper into sin against God. If you have been watching disasters around the world, you will see that we have had more disasters in the last 10 years than we had in the 100 years before that. These so-called "natural disasters" are allowed by God to happen as His way of punishing a sinful people.

We have seen floods, earthquakes, tornadoes (one tornado practically wiped Joplin, MO off the map), hurricanes, like Katrina in New Orleans, tsunamis, like the one in the Pacific and the one in Japan, floods, and forest fires. These disasters have been happening all over the world, because the entire world has turned against God. To this humble writer, It is easy to see why God is getting angry and why He is allowing these disasters to occur.

It does not take a rocket scientist or a theological professor to see, that God is getting angry and when He gets angry disasters happen and this is His way of telling us we need to repent of our sins and turn to Jesus Christ as our Saviour. Unless we turn from our wicked ways, thing are not only going to continue as they have been for the last ten years, we can expect thing to get even worse in the next ten years.

What is the outlook for America in the coming years? DISMAL! Unless we change our way of living, God is going to allow us continue to slide into the GLOBAL PLANTATION, where there will only be lords and serfs and you know what most of us will be: That is those of us that are allowed to live.

Let us close with this bit of advice: Remember, there are very few politicians that can be fully trusted to look out for the best interest of the American people. Their loyalty is to the SUPER-RICH that pay for their elections and not to you, the voters.

The China Threat

It was during the 70's that we began to see China as the greatest threat to our nations security. That seems like a long time ago to many of you, but it became obvious to those of us in the know, that China was the nation to watch out for. Stay with us and you will see, that we know what we are talking about.

By this time we could no longer find electronic equipment that was made in the USA. RCA, General Electric, Motorola, Westinghouse, Zenith, etc. etc. etc., automobiles, appliances and you name it, all the plants had been moved offshore. Patriotic sources began to talk about the balance of payment with China, which made no sense to us, since China was a Communist nation and we were in the Cold War with Communist Russia, who was allied with China.

We lived in Anaheim, California, the home of Disney Land. This was considered by many across the country as the most conservative county in the nation. Our local paper, The Anaheim Bulletin, was owned by Howard Loudon, a staunch conservative and patriot extreme. The county paper was owned by Freedom Newspapers with a Libertarian viewpoint. We also had, in Washington, the nation's best Congressman, James B. Utt and many of us received his very informative news letter each month.

My wife and I belonged to a conservative club, that had some of the county's most conservative people as members. Our most distinguished member was Walter Knott, the founder of Knot's Berry Farm in Buena Park, CA., next to Anaheim and Mr. Knott attended our meetings most of the time. We had several doctors, a few lawyers and other distinguished people as members. Major Jim Townsend, publisher of the National Educator and president of Save Our Republic, an organization working to expose the Federal Reserve System was a faithful member. This was at a time, when most people, even many conservatives, thought the bank was indeed a Federal Bank. We were very well informed and knew what was going on, but many of us did not know who was behind the problems. It took several years for the truth to sink into our slow thinking minds. Since that time we have discovered, that conservatives and professing Christians are some of the most easily fooled people in the country

We began to hear about the balance of payment between the U.S. and China and it was in favor of China. This meant, that they were selling us a lot more stuff, then we were selling them. This made no sense to us, since Communism was the enemy; we wondered why we would be helping the Chinese.

Along about this time, we began to see, that the owners and directors of the national corporations were moving our factories to China, costing us thousands of good paying jobs and making ghost towns out of the northern cities, like Detroit and Flint Michigan. We also discovered that the Democrats, "the working man's friend," did nothing to stop this exodus of our jobs. We also discovered, that Congress, both political parties, was giving these giant corporations a tax break for moving these jobs out of the country. By now many of us began to smell a RAT!.

We fought back against what was happening with all this merchandise being sold in American stores. Some freedom loving people started going around to the stores that sold Chinese merchandise and putting little notes in the pockets and other places saying to buy this stuff was to support communism.

Here they ran into a buzz saw, because the same people that was importing this stuff from Communist China, belonged to the same small group that owned the major stores that was selling this stuff. Some of our people were arrested for placing these notes in among the merchandise. The major media was against people doing his and came down hard on the people caught placing these notes among the stuff. This caused a lot of people to question the goals of the media even more. Some of us thought back to the days when the media was fighting against Sen. McCarthy and his effort to get the communist out of the State Department.

Most of those involved did not see the full picture, because it takes time to study all the issues and to put all the pieces together. It took us many years of study to see that there was indeed a conspiracy to destroy our economy and turn this nation into a third world nation. We discovered this in the early 60's, before the Internet was introduced.

Next we had to learn that the conspirators belonged to a very, very small group; a group so small, that they were INVISIBLE to most people. We have been informed by people on the fringe area of this group, that, there are no more than 300 super-rich families causing all the problems for the rest of the entire world. Think about that, 300 families with enough money to buy enough politicians to make slaves of over 400 billion people of all nationalities, countries and religions.

These 300 families make up, what we know as the BILDERBERGS. Each year for the last 60 some years, 120-to-150 of the SUPER-RICH meat once a year in a secluded spot and plan how they are going to rule the world. One of their goals was to bring all the nations of Europe into one large government. They had planned to do this with the Soviet union, but a little fellow in German, with a funny looking mustache, stopped them.

That was when they decided on the present approach. First they would organize the European Union, then the American Union, and then the Asian Union and this is where China comes into the picture. The would be world rulers would rather deal with three different governments, then hundreds of nations states and providences. In order to accomplish this, the rulers must destroy the U.S. economy, while making billions of dollars for themselves and prepare the people to settle for anything just to survive.

On this web site we have showed you, that the super-rich in America and in Europe financed the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. We showed you that the Rothschild family led the way and the rest of the super-rich followed, the Rockefellers, Schiff's, Loebs, Harriman's and others. Today, the descendants of these Communist supporters are carrying on the dream of their fathers and continue to march us into slavery on A GLOBAL PLANTATION, where there will only be lords and serfs and you know what most of us will be .Many of us will not be allowed to live on this PLANTATION, because the new rulers will kill us to make the world a safe place for them to rule. This is what the communist did in the old Soviet Union and in all communist countries. In Cambodia, under Pol Pot, it has been estimated that the communist killed one third of the people.

In the Soviet Union and in Communist China, millions of poor souls were murdered or allowed to die of starvation just to satisfy these evil bastards lust for blood. A human life means nothing to them, just as long as they win in the end. To these evil people, the entire world could perish and it would not bother them at all. Of course that would be no fun, they want to rule over the Gentile world and see them bow and scrape just to stay alive.

Of course our own government is not much better in some ways. At the end of WW II, we allowed over a million German POW's to die of diseases and starvation in an open field. More German POW's died in this prison camp, then were killed in combat. You can thank Eisenhower and Harry Truman for this blight on our nation. We hung Germans and Japanese for crimes such as this one, while we re-elected Truman as president and later elected Eisenhower president. Both were war criminals and should have been hung along with the Germans and Japanese.

Back to the subject at hand: Harry, the buck stops here, Truman sold out the Chinese Nationalists and allowed the communist to take over in China.

During WW II, the American officials that we sent to China to report on the war and to aid the Chinese Nationalists in their battle against Japan, reported back to Washington, that the Chinese Nationalist were not trying to defeat the Japanese, but rather favored the Japanese and the Chinese communist were doing all the fighting. Of course this was a lie and our government leaders knew it was a lie.

Sitting in the Treasury Dept. was a known communist, Harry Dexter White, who was supposed to be sending money to the Chinese to fight the Japanese, but he was with- holding this vital aid to China. When WW II ended, we soon cut off all aid to China and the communist, with aid from Russia, easily defeated the Chinese Nationalists Chinese, Retired general George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff in Dec.,1941, was now the Secretary of State and he once said: "With the stroke of my pin, I disarmed Chaing Kai Shek." Chaing was the leader of China at that time. We allowed the Chinese communist to take possession of the war material that the Japanese left behind, to be used against the Nationalists Chinese. So you can see that our unelected rulers, the SUPER-RICH ZIONIST, have been for China all the time.

During the reign of Jimmy Carter, who by-the-way professes to be a Christian and that probably helped get him elected, gave away our own Panama Canal with the help of both political parties. And, who is in charge of the Panama Canal today? You guessed it, communist China our sworn enemy.

So, it is easy to see that we have supported the communist in China for many years and we are supporting them now, by building up their economy at the expense of our own economy. Politicians of both political parties are equally guilty in this treasonous action.

Most people will not agree with us, but we say: THAT WE ARE NO LONGER THE GOOD GUYS! Sure we have the best form of government, the world has ever seen, but that government has been taken over by criminals. Both political parties are involved in this criminal activity.

We could see the handwriting on the wall away back in the early 70's. At that time, we said, that China could easily land in Mexico and invade this country from there without having to land on our beaches, because Mexico is a communist country . Today, we believe they will not have to invade at all, but will be able to walk in and take over the country as part of the New World Order.

China is fast becoming the new powerhouse kid on the block. In 10-20 years they will be the most powerful nation in the world, both militarily and economically and it is all because of the 300 SUPER-RICH Zionist Jews that are virtually running the world already. 300 families that have been the movers and shakers behind communist ever since their forefathers sponsored the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

Wake up people and get to know the real enemy and quit listening to the judas goats that are pretending to be your friends. People like Rush Limbaugh, who profess to be pro-American, while he is actually a mouth piece for the Zionist bankers and their friends. You don't think so, then just try and get him to talk about the Bilderbergs, the Federal Reserve Banks or the Obama birth certificate. But, for that matter, just try and get anyone in Congress to talk about the Obama birth certificate. That is something that even Ron Paul will not discuss. Yes my friends, you do not have any friends in Congress, no matter how good they sound. When push comes to shove, Congress will do as their masters, the Zionist bankers and their friends want them to do.

A shameful year

POSTED BY JUDSON PHILLIPS | DECEMBER 19, 2011

Jim DeMint of South Carolina called it a shameful year. He was right.

As Congress wrapped up the spending bills for this year, Democrats decided early on they were going to hang tough and they would not agree to any spending cuts. They also knew the Republicans have no stomach for a fight.

Republicans in Congress, along with their enablers, the Democratic majority in the Senate, passed a $1 trillion budget bill -- and most Congressional Republicans did not even know what was in it.

Where was the Tea Party?

A year ago, the Tea Party swept liberals out of power in Congress. The Republicans came into power with the promise of making changes. They were going to defund Obamacare and were going to cut spending.

A funny thing happened on the way to power. Republicans did nothing.

Now, they have passed an omnibus spending bill. Despite the promise not to put together these massive bills, they did. Despite their promise to have bills available for 72 hours, this bill was rushed through.

Despite promises to cut spending, all of the liberal programs such as Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, the EPA and, well, the list goes on, got their money. Not only did the Republicans not cut spending, spending is actually up under the Republican Congress.

Can someone please tell me why the Tea Party supported the Republicans?

Perhaps the Republicans need to learn something.

In 2000, the American people gave the GOP control of the White House as well as Congress. By 2006, Americans were so disgusted with Republicans acting just like Democrats that they put the Democrats back in charge.

In 2008, the elections results for the Republicans were akin to Custer’s last stand except Custer might have fared a little better. In 2010, the Republicans roared back because the Tea Party came into existence and supported them.

The Republicans did what Republicans always do. They told us they would be conservatives and then went to Washington and acted like liberals.

There were a few who did not. Marco Rubio, the great Senator from Florida voted no. Ted Poe, the great Congressman from Texas did not support this monstrosity either.

The shameful year for the GOP is over. With the establishment doing its best to strangle the conservative movement and give us Mitt Romney as President, the GOP is not learning.

If the GOP is not willing to learn this lesson, perhaps it will learn another lesson. Political parties are not immortal. If they do not respond to the will of the people, they simply became historical footnotes.

The “GinGrinch” Steals Christmas

December 16, 2011 admin

By Ralph Forbes

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich is much nastier than the Grinch of children’s storybook fame, who only disguised himself as Santa to ruin Christmas. Gingrich is a moral leper who fleeced taxpayers for millions of dollars and wants to start World War III by attacking Iran.

Gingrich has been naughty not nice, so we’re making a list and checking it twice.

For helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac destroy the economy, costing millions of Americans their jobs and homes, “The GinGrinch” was paid $1.6 million to oppose those who wanted to stop these taxpayer-guaranteed loans. On April 24, 2007—just before the collapse—Gingrich said: “I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend (these sub-prime loans) as widely as possible.” In 2008, three-quarters of all home loans in the U.S. were guaranteed by taxpayers through Freddie Mac.

Gingrich also supported bailing out Wall Street, but later lied about it, saying: “I’m not for bailing them out. In fact, I’m for breaking them up.” Actually, Gingrich did support the $700 billion taxpayer “TARP” bailout—of which $150 billion went to Freddie Mac and friends.

Gingrich then lied about forcing you to buy from healthcare corporations that bribe Congress. He claimed he only supported the mandate in 1993, as an alternative to “Hillarycare.” Yet as recently as 2007, Gingrich wrote this: “Congress must do more, including passing legislation to . . . require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance. . . .” Gingrich got big bucks from Big Pharma.

Gingrich denies he supported Obama’s skyrocketing energy cost cap-and-trade swindle. But Gingrich wrote: “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system . . . and if you have a tax incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly it’s something I would strongly support.”

Gingrich swears he is not a lobbyist. The mainstream media lets him get away with lying about it.

If Gingrich gets in the White House, he will turn the country into a coast-to-coast real-life nightmare a la Frank Capra’s vision of Pottersville, the fictional alternative reality in the movie It’s a Wonderful Life.

As for me, all I want for Christmas is for Gingrich and all the neocons to volunteer for the frontlines in Afghanistan and all the other countries they want America to attack. I want someone like Ron Paul to win the White House and bring America’s sons and daughters safely home. I want to solve our money problems by getting rid of the banksters’ privately owned Federal Reserve.

That’s not too much to ask, is

PHONY FBI TERROR PLOTS GARNER INCREASED INERNATIONAL SCRUTINY

By Bill White
On Nov. 18 Jose Pimentel, an American citizen from the Dominican Republic, was arrested in New York and charged with constructing a pipe bomb. A federal informant who had been monitoring him sat by, giving him directions, having already instructed Pimentel to attack an American target in revenge for the assassination of American Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Reuters and other news agencies immediately met reports of the plot with skepticism, especially after they said Pimentel bought his bomb-making materials while accompanied by the informant, who eventually caused his arrest.

This incident was the latest in a series of bogus terror arrest hat has drawn the attention of international media sources, particularly Britain's Guardian Newspaper, which ran a Nov.16 expose on increasing governmental efforts to fabricate terror incidents in order to generate fear that can be used to control the American people.

The Guardian report followed a study by the University of California at Berkeley showing that only three of the hundreds of terror plots investigated by the United States may have an existence independent of the FBI. Federal informants have been scouring the country trying to create incidents in order to help the careers of U.S. attorneys and justify excessive American expenditure on anti-terror campaigns.

The FBI has 10,000 field agents on its payroll, and each of those agents is required to have at least four informants working for him full time, manufacturing crimes, in exchange for a paltry $400 a week, plus up to $2,0000 bonus if their lies lead to a conviction. On average, each FBI agent maintains approximately 10 such informants, meaning that 100,000 Americans on the FBI payroll do nothing with their day but manufacture criminal conspiracies. The U.S. marshals, DEA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and BATF maintain similar programs, meaning that as many as half a million Americans are earning a full-time living attempting to lure other Americans into criminal acts, only to be prosecuted by the government.

"Legally, you have to use the word 'entrapment' very carefully. I it is a very strict term." said Karen Greenberg, a professor at Fordham University.

nder U.S. law, all FBI agents has to do in order to "sting" someone for a terror plot is show that he was "predisposed" to commit acts of terrorism. To qualify as predisposed, all one must do is express a strong opinion either opposing the U,S, government or supporting an ideology the government believes is opposed to it. Thus, if a person were to express a strong belief in Islam, that would be sufficient for U.S. domestic intelligence forces to suggest that that person commit a terrorists act, then provide him with items necessary o carry out the act.

Generally, the FBI tries to lure victims into conspiracies, in which several people with similar ideas are brought together and persuaded to commit a crime in unison--a maneuver that means that no actual ability to carry out the attack need be present. But, sometimes, the FBI is unable to bring a group of people together, in which case it manufactures the crime by providing explosives--or explosive materials and instructions--to its victim, and then arrest him.

Don't fail to read the second article by Bill White about the government sting operations and the phony terrorists plots.
NEW WORLD ORDER LOBBY PROMOTING GINGRICH

By Michael Collins Piper

Do you like Newt Gingrich? So do the Zionist Bankers and their friends ED.)

Even though there was no evidence of it, the elite media announced that the presidential campaign of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was picking up steam and gave his ambitions a critical boost. This was no surprise to those who know Gingrich has a longstanding ties to powerful circles outside the realm of the grassroots voters.

In 1968, when conservatives were backing Richard Nixon or then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan for the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich was a Southern campaign coordinator for the liberal internationalist Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York.

Although Gingrich now touts himself as a conservative, he remains a fervent New World Order globalists and a longtime advocate of U.S. military adventurism abroad and destructive so-called free trade policies. In fact, it was Gingrich who helped railroad the discredited North American free Trade Agreement through Congress.

A member of the Rockefeller-financed Council on Foreign Relations, the New York affiliate of the royal Institute of International Affairs, the policy apparatus of the Rothschild banking empire, Gingrich is particularly close to hard-line pro Israel forces on American soil.

One of his chief foreign policy advisors is Ilan Berman, editor of the journal of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the U.S.-based operation said by Prof. Edward Hermann of the University of Pennsylvania to be a "virtual agency of the Israeli government."

Best known for its front-line role through asserts in the George W. Bush administration in misdirecting the United States into the debacle in Iraq and now continuing o clamor for war against Iran, JINSA has several of its key figures--including JINSA's founder, Stephen Byren, and his close associates Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz--investigated by the FBI on suspicion of conducting espionage for Israel.

Gingrich--who has overseen a network of political enterprises that have brought an estimated $100 million into his coffers since he left Congress--has been favored by one donor in particular: Las Vegas gambling tycoon Sheldon Adelson a devoted supporter of Israel, who once described himself as "the richest Jew in the world." This modern incarnation of crime boss Meyer Lansky bankrolled Gingrich to the tune of at least $6 million.

While in Congress, Gingrich benefited from the activities of his (second) wife, Marianne, then on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IEDCO), promoting the importation of Israeli products into the United States--even as Gingrich used his influence in Congress o advance U.S.-Israel trade.

IEDCO was the brainchild of Larry Silverstein, the billionaire owner of the World Trade towers at the time 0f the 9-11tradgey, best known for urging, "pull it"--in reference to the trade center's Building 7, which was deliberately imploded--as 9-11 researchers have documented relentlessly.

Silverstein even admitted to The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number in Congress who lobbied to support Silverstein's ventures. This happened at a time when Gingrich's wife was on Sliverstein's payroll.

Mrs. Gingrich's IDEACO deal was cut in 1994 after she and Newt traveled to Israel at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobby for Israel.

Although she took a monthly salary of $2,500, plus "commissions," Mrs. Gingrich refused to disclose he size of the commissions. the sums she received are of the level seen an many bribery scandals.

On Jan. 25, 1985, a front page story in The Spotlight unmasked Gingrich--then a little-known junior House member and the leader of a clique of Republicans, the Conservative Opportunity Society (CCOS)--as the driving force behind a scheme to scrap the GOP's historic nationalist stance on foreign policy.

The Spotlight revealed that Gingrich and several other CIS members--including then Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.)--had attended a secret meeting with Donald Graham, publisher of The Washington Post, at which Gingrich and the COS agreed to use their influence to push the GOP into the international camp. In return, the Post's power-wielders promised to give Gingrich and his collaborators wide and favorable publicity. Until then, the media had relegated Gingrich and company to back-bench status, painted as extremists.

Gingrich told the Post the COS would--and they did--call for sanctions against white-ruled South Africa, a reversal of the traditional conservative stand, a move that helped bring down that government and which resulted in South Africa turning its nuclear arsenal over to Israel--a little known secret hen and now.

Soon--as promised-- the Post published a laudatory profile of Gingrich, one of many future puff pieces.

Then, Gingrich's colleague, Weber, authored a Post column openly calling for the GOP to become "America's new international party."

The Spotlight was shouted down by conservatives hoodwinked by the big media into following Gingrich's brand of 'leadership." Ultimately, however, the secret Post-Gingrich meeting was confirmed by the Post--but only after Gingrich had reached a position of influence. The Spotlight's "conspiracy theory"--as some called it--proved to be a conspiracy fact.

On Sept.3, 1995 the Post pointed out that "for the ultra-right, Gingrich is just a tool of the world government plot." The Post said "anyone who glances at The Spotlight ... knows .... Gingrich is hardly the leader of their movement, in their eyes, he is [subverting]it."

According to the Post: "Those with a paranoid bent are convinced that the Georgian is in cahoots with President Clinton, the Rockefellers, the Freemasons, the Council on Foreign Relations and the entire eastern establishment to abrogate the Constitution and forge a New World Order under the thumb of the Jewish central bankers and the UN."..

More than a decade later, that sarcastic assessment of Gingrich stands perhaps more true than ever.

PHONY FBI TERROR PLOTS GARNER INCREASED INERNATIONAL SCRUTINY

By Bill White

On Nov. 18 Jose Pimentel, an American citizen from the Dominican Republic, was arrested in New York and charged with constructing a pipe bomb. A federal informant who had been monitoring him sat by, giving him directions, having already instructed Pimentel to attack an American target in revenge for the assassination of American Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Reuters and other news agencies immediately met reports of the plot with skepticism, especially after they said Pimentel bought his bomb-making materials while accompanied by the informant, who eventually caused his arrest.

This incident was the latest in a series of bogus terror arrest hat has drawn the attention of international media sources, particularly Britain's Guardian Newspaper, which ran a Nov.16 expose on increasing governmental efforts to fabricate terror incidents in order to generate fear that can be used to control the American people.

The Guardian report followed a study by the University of California at Berkeley showing that only three of the hundreds of terror plots investigated by the United States may have an existence independent of the FBI. Federal informants have been scouring the country trying to create incidents in order to help the careers of U.S. attorneys and justify excessive American expenditure on anti-terror campaigns.

The FBI has 10,000 field agents on its payroll, and each of those agents is required to have at least four informants working for him full time, manufacturing crimes, in exchange for a paltry $400 a week, plus up to $2,0000 bonus if their lies lead to a conviction. On average, each FBI agent maintains approximately 10 such informants, meaning that 100,000 Americans on the FBI payroll do nothing with their day but manufacture criminal conspiracies. The U.S. marshals, DEA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and BATF maintain similar programs, meaning that as many as half a million Americans are earning a full-time living attempting to lure other Americans into criminal acts, only to be prosecuted by the government.

"Legally, you have to use the word 'entrapment' very carefully. I it is a very strict term." said Karen Greenberg, a professor at Fordham University.

Under U.S. law, all FBI agents has to do in order to "sting" someone for a terror plot is show that he was "predisposed" to commit acts of terrorism. To qualify as predisposed, all one must do is express a strong opinion either opposing the U,S, government or supporting an ideology the government believes is opposed to it. Thus, if a person were to express a strong belief in Islam, that would be sufficient for U.S. domestic intelligence forces to suggest that that person commit a terrorists act, then provide him with items necessary o carry out the act.

Generally, the FBI tries to lure victims into conspiracies, in which several people with similar ideas are brought together and persuaded to commit a crime in unison--a maneuver that means that no actual ability to carry out the attack need be present. But, sometimes, the FBI is unable to bring a group of people together, in which case it manufactures the crime by providing explosives--or explosive materials and instructions--to its victim, and then arrest him.

CRITICS OF 9-11 TRUTH LAVK CRDENIALSBy Paul Craig Roberts

The critics of 9-11 truth: Do not have a case? Answer to the question is no. The 9-11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments. Let's examine the case against the truthers presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt and Alexander Cockburn. But first let's define who the truthers are.

The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart's content. There are a large number of 9-11 conspiracy theorists. Many on both sides the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance. Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories. Sept. 11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs in a cave in Afghanistan outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western World and the operational response of NORAD and the Air Force.

For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black. The question turns not on name calling but on evidence.

The 9-11 Truth movement was created in part by professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high-rise buildings. It was created in part by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-scientists Niels Harriot, who has 60 scientific papers to his credit, and physicists Steven Jones. It was created in part by Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are experts at flying airplanes. It was created in part by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who personally heard and experienced numerous explosions, including explosion in the sub-basements. It was created in part by members of 9-11 families who desire to know how such an improbable set of events as 9-11 could possible occur.

The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that exists. When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they announce they have definite evidence on incendiaries and explosives, you can bet your life they have the evidence.

When a physicists proves that Building 7 fell at free fall speed and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which accepts the government version, has to acknowledge that he is correct, you can bet your life the Physicists is correct.

When fire dept. captains and clean up teams report molten steel and their testimony is backed up with photographs--in the debris of the ruins weeks and months after he buildings' destruction, you can bet your life the molten steel was there. When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge quantities of water with no effects on the molten steel, you can bet your life that the temperature long after the buildings' destruction remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.

When he architects, engineers and scientists speak, they offer no theory of who is responsible for 9-11. hey sate that the known evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9-11 Commission Reports. They say that the explanations that the government has provided is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to discover the truth about the events.

It is not a conspiracy to examine the evidence and to state that the evidence does not support the official exploitation that has been given.

What is the position of the government's critics? Ted Rall says: "Everything I've read and watched on truther sites is easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.)"

Ann Barnhardt writes: "I gotta tell you, I've just about had it with these 9-11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9-11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self loathing, anti-Semitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically."

She goes downhill from here.

Amazing, isn't she? Physic professors have "zero knowledge of rudimentary physics." Internationally recognized logicians have "a general inability to think logically." People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are "self-loathing." If you doubt the government's account you are anti-Semitic. Mrs. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress is the most absolute nonsense imaginable.

Obviously, Mrs. Barnhardt knows nothing at all about what she is talking about, but, overflowing with hubris, she dismissed real scientists and professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her luster with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.

Now we come to Alex Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like Him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9-11.

Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Cockburn does refer to evidence, but it is second-or-third-hand here say evidence that is nonsensical on its face.

For example, Cockburn writes that Chuck Spinney "tells me that 'there are pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting the Pentagon--they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon's heliport, which was right next to the impact point. I have seen them both--stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, butt the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows."

If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. they would have been supplied to the 9-11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that proves its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney.

I have to say the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passengers faces through those small portholes in a plane traveling around 500 miles per hour.

How can Rall, Mrs. Barnhardt or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemists with 40 years experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit? They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don't hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon, worthy of study and analysis.

Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reaction that many have to 9-11, and events about which they have little actual information. Even the .lead members of the 9-11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending, as NIST refuses o release the details of the simulation upon which it bases its conclusion.

On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks . The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and heir detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is a state of the debate.

"WE HAVE THE GREATEST SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT EVER DEVISED BY MAN. UNFORTUNATLEY THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER AND IS BEING RUN BY CRIMINALS" - Latino Smith.

There are five articles today

How Ron Paul Could Win

Washington Moves The World Closer To War

About Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

WHAT KIND OF PRESDIENT WOULD RON PAUL BE?

By Lattigo Smith

I cannot answer that question, nor can anyone else. We watch what politicians do and we base our opinion on what they do and not what they say. Politicians say what their handlers think will appeal to the public.

Ron Paul could be a different story. We don't know what kind of president Paul would make, but we do know what kind of congressman he has been and we believe that he will be the same kind of president.

Romney Tied to Terrorism

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Survivor of Israeli Attack Reveals Secrets of 1967 High Seas Massacre

LEAD-UP TO THE ATTACK

McCain, Bachmann Confronted Over ‘Incident’

Yet again, the unprovoked attack by a foreign power on an American ship remained the 800-pound gorilla in the room—ignored by the media and politicians that are supposed to stand with our servicemen against such hostil Media Accounts of Syrian Unrest Crafted to Twist Public Opinion

he added that unless the European Union makes its "political union catch up with its economic union," the current disjunction at the EU will continue and the union could unravel. He called the EU "a non-existing political union ... theoretically, it's a loose confederation."

New Hampshire board decides Obama eligibility

By: Jim R. Schwiesow